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

Re: Velikovsky, Fomenko, and the reinterpretation of History

Unread post by bostonterrierowner » Fri Apr 17, 2015 6:21 am

@ReadytoBeDeployed

History is a bunch of lies agreed upon as truth ( credited to Bonaparte ) no doubt about that but what you are trying to pull off here is absurd. Fomenko is a fucking joke for the reasons I gave above ( among others ).

P-Russian, Russian :)
ReadyToBeDeployed wrote: "...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? ( how do you know that? Why such a selective confidence in historic "facts" ? )

What's the most famous book on the Napoleonic Wars? Tolstoy War and Peace... When was it written... in the decade of 1860..."
Who was first then? Tolstoy with his book or Napoleonic wars?

To me you are just a troll sent here to ridicule our research.

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 9:42 am

To me you are just a troll sent here to ridicule our research.
He's also heavily re-editing his previous posts... in fact, unless I'm much mistaken, that's a new post entirely that you're responding to, bostonterrierowner.

So now it appears that I am no longer quoting him in my previous post.

Kinda ironic... him trying to change the past.

Still his latest response seems equally verbose & fervent... I doubt anyone sent him. This is just him 'expressing himself'.

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 10:47 am

Critical Mass wrote: He's also heavily re-editing his previous posts...
I took back a few "aggressive comments" towards you, as suggested by Hoi. That's what I edited.

And the other "edited" post, was only added, I started with a line saying I'm thinking about how to organize the subject, then added to it.

Fomenko's demolition of history is brutal, life-changing.

I highly ask all the readers to start reading it, it's online, read just the first hundred pages, and please come back here and comment.

Yes, the guy is Russian, but you can easily distinguish for yourself the CRITICISM, the ARGUMENTS, the sources, and then, his THEORY, his possible reconstruction.
There are other European researchers, if you speak German, Christopher Pfister, French, the archived version of isanova.ch, English, Edwin Johnson and Jean Hardoin.
And many more "moderate" researchers.

I don't get paid to explain this, I loose my patience and get angry as you see..

Go to the wikipedia page of any "classical" author of Roman or Greek times.. you will see a pretty marble effigy to the right, giving more realism to that character... but... when was it made? Pretty much now, 19th century or a bit before they will claim, that is, 2000 years after his death. But nothing to see there, nothing to think about...Just in your face, all the time...

There are CGI creations! Oh my God! How can that be!

Excuse me... they had been creating fake characters forever, it's nothing new.
You think that because there's a portrait in wikipedia that character exists?
Or because they made (in the late XIXth century) a marble effigy of him?

Let's keep saying "the Media fakes the news!" but believe what they tell us about the past as good schooled citizens.

Specially now that with computers, graphics, and statistical methods it has been proved that all history is a statistically impossible repetition of the same exact cycle.
A single line of real events was duplicated lots of times back, to elongate history and cover the real old one.

Fomenko's books are famous and good as an introduction, there's even some documentaries already in English.

And once you allowed the chip change, the question to be raised to check history, you can go on your own, in you city or country.

Do what you want.

And shill? I kept for three years the 80 pages long nukes don't exist in the second biggest spanish-speaking forum.

http://www.burbuja.info/inmobiliaria/co ... isten.html

And another three hundred pages long thread on how they control our perception of space, time and existence (the creation of modern astronomy/geography and history).
http://www.burbuja.info/inmobiliaria/co ... plana.html

And before that, I was in nukelies as Sorensen731 (you can find a small thread there, but it wasn't the place)

But I don't have to show anything.
Read the books. Type fomenko pdf or fomenko history science or fiction pdf and start reading, the first volume is the basic one.

I just couldn't stand the unfairness here towards such topic and such introductory book to the subject.
Your comments were wrong, the topic is important and the arguments given strong enough.
That's my opinion based on my research. Now make your own reading and opinion.

Why do they lie now? Why did they start lying? That's what they will think, internally.
They told us the truth about the past, so, why would they lie about the present? That's the thinking process of the masses.

I won't write more. Others have written more eloquently and have addressed the questions you will have in a more organized manner, and with more tact and friendship ; - )

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 12:00 pm

ReadyToBeDeployed wrote: I took back a few "aggressive comments" towards you, as suggested by Hoi.

That's what I edited, you can say thanks anytime.
If you insist... however your posting style continues to be erratic to say the least.

You make claim after claim after claim yet cannot be pinned down on anyone point. Your current tactics make you impossible to debate with.

Let's get back onto the Naval technology... do you continue to claim that sailing ships should have been armored sooner or at all?

If the late 18th century/early 19th century are a hoax as you suggest then I'm assuming it is your contention that there are no 'Napoleonic ships'... or the ones that you can visit today were constructed later (in what we know now as the 1870's) to 'fool the public' into thinking that sailing ships existed for longer than they did?

So if I'm understanding you correctly (please feel free to correct me) in your 'reality' Westerners went from sailing carracks through to steam powered Ironclads in about a centuries worth of 'real time'?

Do you not think that's a little too quick... with one generation inventing something as simple as 'the gunport' (and firing one pound round shot through them) whilst that generations grandchildren then go on to perfect the mechanically operated turret with machine rifled barrels firing high explosive shells ?

It seems to me it would take a long time to develop such advanced technology... four centuries seems a reasonable time frame (~12 generations).

Either way, is there anything in particular about William James six volume history which you find to be false? The 'sailing history hoaxers' have some pretty impressive evidence on their side... a well constructed timeline, physical evidence which you visit to this day, sailing terminology we still use to this day, historical volumes written in the styles of their respective days etc.

Where are the glitches in the Naval technology 'story' that we have today?

Do me a favour, try & stick to just this topic alone... please don't fly off into a dozen more claims & questions & emotional statements like you usually do.

Flabbergasted
Moderator
Posts: 904
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: Velikovsky, Fomenko, and the reinterpretation of History

Unread post by Flabbergasted » Fri Apr 17, 2015 12:05 pm

ReadyToBeDeployed wrote:I did my part.
Ooops! Sorry, I think I just quoted a deleted statement!

ReadyToBeDischarged,

Yes, you have made your point sufficiently, thank you.

The valid points in your exhortation are not new to anyone on this forum. The other 95% is a huge distraction.

It may not have occurred to your enlightened self, but other highly sophisticated cultures, such as the Islamic civilization in its golden age between the 9th and 12th centuries, have kept records of history independently of the modern European myth-making machine.

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

Re: Velikovsky, Fomenko, and the reinterpretation of History

Unread post by bostonterrierowner » Fri Apr 17, 2015 12:20 pm

Nobody disagrees with you here that "history" is doctored, frequently antedated, intertwnined with fables and full of fake characters but you seem very motivated to create such an impression.

Fomenko is an equivalent of Alex Jones to historic fakery research and with all this knowledge you are trying to impress us with it begs the question why didn't you figure this out.

Seems like his main job is lending credibility to "Christianity" ( cult evolved from Roman Emperor worship started by Divus Julius aka Julius Caesar/Jesus Christ ) and bible fairytales/allegories.

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 2:16 pm

Critical Mass wrote: Your current tactics make you impossible to debate with.
I'm here. Answering.

Critical Mass wrote: If the late 18th century/early 19th century are a hoax as you suggest then I'm assuming it is your contention that there are no 'Napoleonic ships'...
There are modern ships, steam powered ships, armored frigates, wooden frigates, and so on.

But their DATING, is wrong, they weren't stuck for 3 centuries with galleons and galleys.

They didn't took a millennium of using metal in swords to using metals for cannons.

Once they started using metals, it developed very fast into "modern" technology.

Human development has been very fast, incredible fast, non stop.

A bad dusty road, a good road, a railroad for horses, then steam power.
Renaissance was the the XIX century, and at that time there wasn't a unified christian calendar, but a chaos of different lunar, solar, royal calendars, so you will see real "dates", like J678 somewhere in Italy for example, or a I520 in Spain, but that doesn't mean it was 1520, or 495 years ago! It was 200 years ago only, the TRANSLATION of OLD CHARACTERS, we called 4 digit dates, is WRONG.
We misread old calendars, and the new powers that be implemented a new calendar, with a fake history, and they schooled us into misreading the old dates we may find.

The biggest problem is the typical rush to assume the same calendar was always in mind, no, it wasn't.

You misread things into your current cultural setting and schooling.

Just like we write 2015 after Christ, or Anno Domini, so did our ancestors... in the first character we now misread as a millenium, it was either a J or I, Iesus, Iulius, Iulian.
It corresponds to official history, before the Gregorian Calendar was the Julian calendar, they acknowledge it!

Just get any book on the "discoveries" of "ancient" Rome or Greece, it's all there, once you start seeing with this curious mind it's irrefutable.


Critical Mass wrote: or the ones that you can visit today were constructed later (in what we know now as the 1870's) to 'fool the public' into thinking that sailing ships existed for longer than they did?
? I don't follow you.

There are sunken ships, but, as I show, when they found them, they are forced to accept them as late 18th century, they never found ships like Columbus three caravels, because nobody in their sane mind would sail the Atlantic with those, and less expect to conquer a continent, and even if they did, they would immediately expend a lot on research and shipbuilding, so not to waste their man and precious gold into the depths of the sea.

Critical Mass wrote: So if I'm understanding you correctly (please feel free to correct me) in your 'reality' Westerners went from sailing carracks through to steam powered Ironclads in about a centuries worth of 'real time'?
Yes. What's so weird about that?

We went from biplane to Concorde in less than a century. From horseback riding to Panzer tanks. From wooden sailing frigates to U-boats.
In a century it changed a lot. But before it? Very slow according to court historians... in all sense, technology and population.

Check the population census of American countries. Argentina, less than 2 millions in 1869.
How is that? With "three centuries and a half" of "continuously developed better Galleons and Frigates..."

Now, but it's in the books, go to any Royal Garden, any Botanical Institute, ask, when did Europe start to cultivate American products? When did the Spanish population start to use chocolate? Potatoes? Tomatoes?

When were the first Scientific/Botanical expeditions to America? The first Spanish ones were in the late 18th. Why? Why almost 300 years without sending a botanist to America? Why no books, no drawings? I've been there, I've researched all this.

It's easy and simple, humanity history is shorter and more compact, we created, constructed, and colonized the world very fast.


Critical Mass wrote: Do you not think that's a little too quick... with one generation inventing something as simple as 'the gunport' (and firing one pound round shot through them) whilst that generations grandchildren then go on to perfect the mechanically operated turret with machine rifled barrels firing high explosive shells ?

It seems to me it would take a long time to develop such advanced technology... four centuries seems a reasonable time frame (~12 generations).
No. Look planes, tanks, railroads, look the enormous tankers we build, aircraft carriers in WW1/WW2, and one century before that? Almost pure wooden vessels, just starting to test metal plating.

Look at photography, to TV, to Internet... electronics... more people, with food assured, building on the previous generation... things can develop fast.

Today they don't, because the powers that rule don't need better tech, they want the population they control to be unarmed and disarmed intellectually, so no country or group can arm itself to regain freedom, see "nukes" and the worthless theoretical physics they give to the massed.

Critical Mass wrote: Either way, is there anything in particular about William James six volume history which you find to be false? The 'sailing history hoaxers' have some pretty impressive evidence on their side... a well constructed timeline, physical evidence which you visit to this day, sailing terminology we still use to this day, historical volumes written in the styles of their respective days etc.
A sunken ship doesn't speak, it's an object you need to careful interpret.

An skeleton doesn't speak. They can tell whatever they want about it. They may present it as a "bronze age man", caveman, whatever.

There are sunken ships. Yes, but, when were they built? How was the world then? The sea level? The politics?

I haven't checked your reference yet, I'll get to it later. But isn't it weird that in the late 18th they needed to write history about their naval history? Why?
Don't they have yearly reports, or reports every few years accumulated from centuries? Don't they have the old logs? Why the need?
They were creating a virtual reality, statues to kings from centuries ago, centenary celebration of battles.

There's six tomes by that guy, great. You can write anything there. Now go back to my points, when were products of America brough to Europe? When were they used. That's a way stronger proof to see who is right. That book could have been written later and given a fake previous date. But the fakers couldn't fake all the real events of indirect areas of life.
They can tell anything in school, it's their, it's free, it's paper, book and maps.
But if the chocolate and potatoes arrived and were planted and harvested or not, that's another question. If the tobaco and coca from America was only known in Europe in the 19th century, that's a big alarm.
If the population figures show America could easily have been settled in the 1810, then my point gets stronger.
If the first centenary of Columbus and the discovery of America happened only in 1892...
Why no 1592 celebration of the discovery of America? None in Spain or America, nothing. Neither in 1692, or 1792... only in 1892.
Weird, isn't it?
And just before the 1892 celebration of Columbus, many books on the subject were published about his life, all in that previous decades, the majority of books and painting of Columbus are from that time.
In the Naval Museum of Spain, in Madrid, you can see many paintings of him, and his famous companions... all of them painted in the 19th century.
Weird, isn't it?
We are told there were very good painters at that time in Europe. And how did they get their faces? From someone dead for three centuries?

It's a massive joke.
I know what I'm talking about. I may not be a native English speaker, or the most polite and entertainer here, but of this, I'm sure, it's a joke, a 19th century joke, in our face. I may get carried away in speculations, I'm aware of that, but the criticism part is absolutely 100% correct.

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 3:22 pm

ReadyToBeDeployed wrote: I'm here. Answering.
And you will get one answer from me per actual 'Naval technology' point... I'm just going to snip & ignore your 'claim spam'.

But their DATING, is wrong, they weren't stuck for 3 centuries with galleons and galleys.
But nobody claims they were stuck... the official story is of continuous progress & refinement. Your argument is a straw man... you're claiming the official story is something which it is not & then debunking your false story. I showed you the official differences between a 15th century ship & a 19th century ship. Yet you keep ignoring those claimed differences & saying instead 'they were stuck' and therefore they 'can't really have been stuck'.

This is why it's impossible to debate you. Your religious fervor won't even allow you to realize you've misunderstood the official story. How can you debunk something without first knowing the narrative?

One of the reasons Cluesforum has done such an amazing job on subjects like 9/11 is because we know the story so well. We know the characters, we know when new footage was released, we know what was 'live footage', what was not. We know the names (& faces) of countless vicsims, we know their stories & we know their tributes. It's because we know 9/11 so well that we know it to be an absurd fantasy.

However your opinions are derived from a blind ignorance of the official story. It's the equivalent of saying...

"I know 9/11 was a hoax because terrorists would never attack civilians on a Friday".

Then ignoring all counter arguments that the 'attack' took place on a Tuesday*.

I don't follow you
You can visit late 18th/early 19th century fighting vessels today... HMS Victory at Portsmouth, USS constitution at Charlestown. I'm presuming you believe these to have been built in the 1870's to fool us?
Yes. What's so weird about that?
Well as your examples imply that's rather a lot of progress for pre-industrial nations... In two generations making the countless technological & engineering advancements required to get from iron cannon right through to brass cannons & then onto machine rifled steel in numerous areas of society & all at the same brisk pace. Quite a story you got there.
I haven't checked your reference yet, I'll get to it later. But isn't it weird that in the late 18th they needed to write history about their naval history? Why?
Not really... people seem to need little provocation to write. As this 'debate' shows.
I know what I'm talking about.
Well you're singularly failing to show it.





* How many people even know that basic fact

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 3:53 pm

Critical Mass wrote:HMS Victory at Portsmouth,
Do you even read what you cite?

Look;

"Victory was largely forgotten, except for a brief period during 1833 when she was visited by the queen in waiting, Princess Victoria and her mother, the Duchess of Kent.[61]

In 1889, Victory was fitted up as a Naval School of Telegraphy. "


See the empty space between 1833 and 1889? What do they say about it? NOTHING.

It was getting dust for 56 years and then, suddenly, they start using it as a naval school of telegraphy.

It's in your face. The "Napoleonic" events of 1812 were more than fifty years later in reality.

All wikipedia is full of this holes, they speak a lot about the fake dates, like 1812, then... empty decades of nothing.. and then the pure impossible to hide truth, that the ship was "forgotten" and then "reused" in 1889.
Critical Mass wrote: USS constitution at Charlestown. I'm presuming you believe these to have been built in the 1870's to fool us?
You are playing dirty with your question, it wasn't built to fool you. It was rightly built at its time, for its purpose, and for its war, and then, a DUPLICATE phantom paper-only event of it was created, a "sim", was sent back to the "Napoleonic" times of 1812.

The ship is real, and fought, and you may see it. But it's not as old as claimed. They extended his history 50 years or more.

It's not that hard to understand.

Events of 1860/1870 more or less real (the main characters have been changed, but the wars and events are real)

Events of "1812" fake, a duplicate of the above wars, and at that time the christian four digit calendar didn't exist.

There were several famous books at the time, Historical Doubts relating to Napoleon Bonaparte, and an early XXth century Russian book claiming Napoleon never invaded Rusia, another Italian one Imperator Inexistente or something like that.

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 5:10 pm

ReadyToBeDeployed wrote: Do you even read what you cite?
Yes.
You are playing dirty with your question, it wasn't built to fool you. It was rightly built at its time, for its purpose, and for its war, and then, a DUPLICATE phantom paper-only event of it was created, a "sim", was sent back to the "Napoleonic" times of 1812.

The ship is real, and fought, and you may see it. But it's not as old as claimed. They extended his history 50 years or more.
Right, we're getting somewhere now... a theory.

Not a random claim or an emotional opinion... but a theory.

Feels good, does it not?

I don't think your theory makes much sense... the ships are clearly armed with pre-1860's weapons & inevitably one asks themselves why would Britain be building large, expensive three decker ships in what we call the 1860's without giving them steam power (which I'm assuming you agree was available at the time?) but sod it... we finally have a theory.

Ataraxia
Member
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 1:15 am

Re: Velikovsky, Fomenko, and the reinterpretation of History

Unread post by Ataraxia » Fri Apr 17, 2015 11:13 pm

ReadytoBeDeployed, what do you say about the Swedish Vasa ship dating to 1630? Or your own Spanish La Capitana dating from 1650 and found shipwrecked off the coast of Spain by following old diaries of men who were on the ship and from which they recovered treasure in the 1990s? What about the solar ships dug up from the Great Pyramids? Even if these are fake (which I'm willing to accept with proper evidence), it contradicts you saying that they claim all ships are from the 18th century, which suggests your intricate research itself is incorrect. And these are not even difficult examples to find.

If you had set a ship on your front lawn 500 years ago, it'd barely look distinguishable now, let alone rotting in the bottom of the sea for all that time, covered in murk and sea-growth. You also say there's no proof of any of these voyages, but if you go to the archives of the Dutch West/East India Company or the British Maritime Museum, they have hundreds of thousands of the most boring documents detailing the smallest purchases in outfitting the ships, dating back to the 1600s. They also have thousands of ship's logs detailing daily events and the progresses of each and every voyage made by their ships. I know Wikipedia is easily faked, because all they need to do is click one button and they can change the truth, but are thousands upon thousands of these documents faked?

You say nobody would sail in such ships, but to sail the oceans all you need is a reliable floating platform and food and water and if you reach the current it will move you forward even almost with no effort on your part. Look at the Kon-Tiki expedition as an example. Look at how the Polynesians get around their islands in their simple ships. I guess you'd say the Vikings reaching North America is also faked, which is perhaps possible too and the Viking objects and buildings they found there were placed later, but they reached Iceland and Greenland and Newfoundland is not difficult to reach after that. And even if they did it later, as you might claim, they still did it in ships ostensibly less seaworthy than Colombus's caravels.

As far as advances in sailing technology, the biggest Spanish galleons had thick enough hulls that cannons couldn't even pound through them. Funny enough, they did begin coating ships in copper up to the waterline (to prevent shipworms from eating through them) but it'd be crazy to coat them all the way since not only would they be unseaworthy, but the rigging and the exposed men were the real weaknesses to cannonfire not the hull. Why coat an entire ship in metal when a single lucky shot to the rigging could bring the ship to a standstill? There were hundreds of technological advancements made between the caravel and the galleon, but you yourself disregard all of these and then say that it's a single step doable in a single generation of life.

You're claiming a faster change in the past than we see in our lifetimes now. You say human development is very fast, but in 35 years, the area around here hasn't really changed that much, and we're at the height of all the greatest technological advancements. There hasn't been a new city built here in half a century at least, where according to your theory we should be witnessing absolute and accelerated growth. According to your theory life should be changing even faster than what we saw in the past, since the technological progress builds on itself and speeds advancement up, faster and faster, when the reverse is kind of true and people are still inherently the same as they were 100 years ago, if not 40,000 years ago and life meanders along even with technology invention.

One thing I'm interested in though, is what came before the 1600s then? Nothingness? Eternal slavery? And why did it change if they had such absolute control over reality? Why don't all the kings, princes and bishops of the past appear truly holy and good? Why are we even allowed to see how corrupt and worthless most of them were? Wouldn't they change the history to not let us know any of that? Wouldn't they make themselves God?

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

Re: Velikovsky, Fomenko, and the reinterpretation of History

Unread post by ReadyToBeDeployed » Sat Apr 18, 2015 1:05 am

Ataraxia wrote:ReadytoBeDeployed, what do you say about the Swedish Vasa ship dating to 1630?
DATING?? DATED, by humans, wrongly schooled in an erroneous reading of the past.
Ataraxia wrote: Or your own Spanish La Capitana dating from 1650 and found shipwrecked off the coast of Spain by following old diaries of men who were on the ship
What?? I don't negate the ship. I say it has been MIS-DATED.

I'm amazed by your straw-man attacks and your obvious hiding of all the other points I raised. You surely have a strategy here.
Ataraxia wrote: If you had set a ship on your front lawn 500 years ago
You have no idea of the past. You have no real information, only SECONDARY EVIDENCE, HEARSAY.

You speak with such lightness of "imagine 500 years ago"...

You only knew your grandfathers, and hear their stories, you know a bit, the world was more rural, lots of movement from Europe to America, the legal and economic changes, some battles and wars they didn't like to talk about.
Before that. What? Who knows?

My great-grandfathers lived in the middle ages, they had their animals, their small artisan shop, they all lived in very small towns and at that time cities were very, very small, 20.000 habitants or so.

The thing is, you don't know the recent real past, you only know Hollywood or schoolbook style ancient mythical past, then... empty space, and today. You can't see how recent it all is, you have been compartmentalized.
They claim armours are a thing of the middle ages, but they were used even until WW1 in some non-western countries.
Kings in the 19th century are painted with armour, because it worked, and it was the time.

Medieval tournaments were happening in the late 18th century, and 19th century France, there are drawings of "middle age" knights of that time and you can see the mixture of 19th clothing and medieval armour.

You don't even know who created and start using the very word "middle ages"?

Are you aware of your lack of information in this area? Who organized our view of history into "middle ages" "renaissance", and so on? Who? When?

Some folks, like magicians who distract your attention, created new words, classification and faraway mythical past, and got your attention, so you all study for decades... a phantom past and don't give a damn about checking the real sources and the real past of our last 200 years.

Look at how they made you speak, "a ship dating ..." No, the ship doesn't speak, doesn't have a ghost, it's unknown, secret, to be interpreted by us with huge difficulty.
And because you can't travel back in time, slowly, year by year, as a ghost, you can make mistakes, moreover if politics and human error is involved.

Ataraxia wrote: You also say there's no proof of any of these voyages,You also say there's no proof of any of these voyages,
Excuse me? What the hell are you talking about?

To avoid you misreading me, please quote me instead of putting words in my mouth.

I said official history acknowledges there was no Spanish botanical expedition to America until the late 18th century.

There's "proof" of that voyage, but I'm sure if you check the papers you will say they never wrote a four digit current Christian date, but only a J788 or something like that, I found 820 as a date, in other places.

So there was an expedition, as they claim, but in their documents, in the writings there they weren't using the same calendar we are using now.

The majority of books of the late 19th century and beginning of the early 20th century don't have a date stamp on the first pages.
Weird, but somehow all the previous books have it.
It wasn't normal to stamp the date everywhere, it wasn't considered important or necessary, and at that era there was no unified calendar, so it was worthless.

In economics there was chaos, different coins, standard... in time today we have different time-zones... well, it isn't that hard to understand different cultures and countries were using different calendars!
Today the Chinese and the Muslims still have theirs!

Ataraxia wrote: but if you go to the archives of the Dutch West/East India Company or the British Maritime Museum
Excuse me, I just talked about the Spanish Maritime Museum, and explained that all painting there of Columbus and company are from the 19th century!
I visited them, I research and found again and again proof.
Ataraxia wrote: they have hundreds of thousands of the most boring documents
Yes, and I have thousands of them, scanned in my computer, and others read in person, and they all support my thesis.
Most of the time, there's no date at all, or a weird one, it's almost impossible to find the 4 digit current Christian date.

Even so, paper is very easily faked, there was a huge industry and many scandals in the "renaissance" and later, to the 19th.

Many of the now considered classical documents suffered heavy criticism at recent centuries, in the 19th there still was a huge debate regarding "new", "recovered" "found" "classical" books.

You just don't know that. They hide their weakness, their humiliation, ask historians about art fakery, about the fakery of the renaissance...
There are many books.
But historians don't want their vulnerabilities exposed.

Ataraxia wrote: detailing the smallest purchases in outfitting the ships, dating back to the 1600s.
Yes, and that data destroys the artificial history they gave us. In all the French navy of the late 18th century, there's not a single Christian name, NONE. All of the ships have pagan, Greek names. Only in the 19th century does the French navy finally gets ships with Christian names/references.

Ataraxia wrote: I know Wikipedia is easily faked, because all they need to do is click one button and they can change the truth, but are thousands upon thousands of these documents faked?
It's not hard, they get paid to do that, that's how court historians started, that's what they do in war, fake enemy's bill, enemy's passports, confessions... see Nuremberg or the British Special Forces infiltrating Germany.

They were the ones making the documents, they took control of the conquered country, including printing press, and materials, they had all the money and people, they had lot of time to create artificially aged paper, many people worked in that business, still do, like in painting.

And I thought this was cluesforum!

Ataraxia wrote: You say nobody would sail in such ships, but to sail the oceans all you need is a reliable floating platform and food and water
No, you need a good "travel experience" if you want more people to follow.

The British with their Lloyds and other "insuring agencies" know about that. They didn't conquered half the world with shitty caravels, they moved immediately to test, design and research more and better types of ships.

And my "national ego" is damaged here, I don't win anything here in terms of politics or national egoism, I'm taking away three centuries of "dominance" of "my country".
So I'm not selling anything for my benefit...
Ataraxia wrote: and if you reach the current it will move you forward even almost with no effort on your part.
That's true, but only part of the truth, another current, a storm may get in your way, and you may sink!

The current flows in that direction, great, but it's not guaranteed it will flow smoothly and peacefully with no interferences or surprises.

Ataraxia wrote: Look at the Kon-Tiki expedition as an example
Great man! Good. Look at him. He TESTED history, he despised historians and paper pushers, he went to CHECK THINGS OUT. Is that possible?

That's the attitude historians don't have and they don't want applied to history.
Ataraxia wrote: I guess you'd say the Vikings reaching North America is also faked,
Why???

Ataraxia wrote:And even if they did it later, as you might claim, they still did it in ships ostensibly less seaworthy than Colombus's caravels.
Maybe that's why they didn't settled it? Because it was a hard journey? Could have been a lonely lost ship, or some very crazy sailor.

Ataraxia wrote: There were hundreds of technological advancements made between the caravel and the galleon,
Yes.

And? How is it necessary for these advancements to take three centuries and not one, or less? Please explain.
Ataraxia wrote: You're claiming a faster change in the past than we see in our lifetimes now.
I also said that now the powers that be are in control and have forced a stop, force feeding fake science, destroying the education, values, living, social life, intellectual curiosity, making people sick, vaccinated, irradiated, etc...

People were mostly free, strong, unpolluted, and with strong will and reasons to explore the unexplored, settle the unsettled, and race against their aggressive competitors.

Now, there's only one world-power, the jews, see them in banks, media, government, science self-giving prizes... and they want us weak and disarmed, physically and intellectually.
Development has been stopped artificially, censure, patents, boycott, bureaucracy, legal prosecution with excuses... an attitude against the free-thinkers, less wealth available in the middle class...

Even after this, we are changing A LOT, socially, see twitter, phones, stay at home with computers, globalization, English worldwide, immigration, feminism, tolerance....

We are way different than the 60's.

And the 10, or 20s generation of the 20th century even had duels in the universities, with sword, only made illegal in the 30s or 40s in Austria...

Ataraxia wrote: You say human development is very fast, but in 35 years, the area around here hasn't really changed that much,
? Madrid. During the civil war it was less than half million. Today, more than three million.

The neighbourhood I live in didn't exist during the civil war/ww2. It was empty, bushes, rocks, dirt. Today, kms and kms of recent buildings, 50 years or less.

The majority of the population lives in new buildings, less than a century old, only a few lucky rich guys live in old palaces or the very small city centre... You are not living in a three hundred years old house aren't you?

How much "history" is around you? Because as I said, it hasn't been preserved, old walls and towers were taken down. New York for example was unfortunately almost destroyed and rebuilt, building by building. They didn't give a fuck about the past or history, only money.

And I'm sure something easily changed, antennas, advertisement, phones, the attitude and speed of the people.
Ataraxia wrote: and we're at the height of all the greatest technological advancements. There hasn't been a new city built here in half a century at least,
The Chinese have been building for all of us. And in Europe the Spanish construction bubble has been epic.
Ataraxia wrote: where according to your theory we should be witnessing absolute and accelerated growth.
Ehm no. (Clever) Humanity grows fast after the deluge... only until a big enough number of humans, then it stops, because earth is finite and resources limited, we don't want to live like ants or bees, I enjoy free air and space.

So in the 19th century, lots of kids, in the 20th century, less kids, in the 21th, very few kids.
Ataraxia wrote: According to your theory life should be changing even faster than what we saw in the past, since the technological progress builds on itself and speeds advancement up
Up to a point, you work because you have necessities and are in danger, weak against nature, once you have enough, you enjoy life.

Why should you do things? We are already connected, internet, planes, highways... you can buy exotic foods or anything!

And the big changes, like electric cars are attacks on the economic powers that be, and national security threat, they are afraid of a possible new revolutionary technology/science starting in a not so controlled country, country that could free itself from the bankers and lead a world change...so, no changes, only small steps towards slavery and weakening of curiosity, resolve, virility, etc...
Ataraxia wrote: people are still inherently the same as they were 100 years ago
Sure, bring back to life the KKK, they will surely behave and be just like modern Gay New-Yorkers.
Ataraxia wrote: One thing I'm interested in though, is what came before the 1600s then? Nothingness? Eternal slavery?
Why?

The past was better and more free, in general. Before that there were no humans on Earth, the human spirit incarnated/materialized here very recently, a matter of centuries, that's one of the reasons they have to elongate history, to keep us believing we belong here, when we don't.
Ataraxia wrote: And why did it change if they had such absolute control over reality?
They don't, they are like magicians, they DISTRACT, but the real thing is happening, you just don't look at it because you only study Sparta, the Romans and so on, instead of going from the present, to the past slowly and with a Sherlock Holmes attitude. The events are there to easily reconstruct and understand. They can't erase it, they can only re-interpret. A war? Nope. A "fire", an "earthquake", a "plague".

Until Napoleon there was a "Holy Roman Empire" in Germany, it's there, the Roman Empire, in public view, but they move your attention to the 2000 year old Italian Roman empire.

It's like focusing all the attention on the 911 tv footage, it's fake, so focus on the ground, find other sources of information, analyse it through other angles...

Ataraxia wrote: Why are we even allowed to see how corrupt and worthless most of them were? Wouldn't they change the history to not let us know any of that? Wouldn't they make themselves God?
How many Mein Kampfs were printed and sold? Dozen of millions? Can they "fake it"? Why would they? They already convinced people not to read it, even not to sell it in many countries!
The majority of the population is afraid of that book, and believe very emotionally that it's evil and says so and so, without reading it.

In fact, many new editions have aggressive unfair "introductions" to such "evil text" and how to "interpret" it.

And some editions have been accused of having some inserted fragments, but that has been detected.

So, how would you, for example, "erase" Mein Kampf? How do you imagine it could be changed? They have limited power, they can brainwash with TV several countries, like America and send them to burn all the cities of Germany, but that's not very elegant or perfect.

They already achieved their objectives, and so well that you don't even know which objectives were those!

Ataraxia
Member
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 1:15 am

Re: Velikovsky, Fomenko, and the reinterpretation of History

Unread post by Ataraxia » Sat Apr 18, 2015 4:12 am

The problem with your way of thinking is you're going to claim absolutely everything as false, even though there has to be a truth, whatever it might be. I think we can agree there. Why do you believe some random sources and not others? You want to use your botanical sources as your proof, but what if they're mere inventions as well, created to trip you up? Now you're stuck nowhere.

In the end, I can only go on what I see myself from life, and from my experience I can see that life doesn't move as quickly as you claim it does, where all of invention, settlement and technology has been condensed down to a few hundred years. I'd agree though that maybe it's equally absurd that 2 million years ago humans discovered fire and did nothing substantial until 10,000 years ago when they apparently started farming.

It's a shame you don't live in a place where they're trying to keep their history alive. I've walked down streets in Kingston, Ontario where all the buildings are the original stone buildings of the settlement, dating back to the late 1700s and 1800s. Fort Frontenac there dates back to 1673 (not that dates mean anything anymore). In Quebec City the Old City has many hundreds of houses and structures that date back to the 1600s and 1700s. You were complaining that they stripped the city walls down everywhere, but Quebec City still has it's city wall. Besides, why wouldn't they strip city walls down, it's not like they're useful any more. That's like asking everyone to keep a horse and buggy at home even though they have cars, or keep their piss buckets when they have toilets.

On the subject of cars, you mentioned the electric car as a model of freedom, which people are trying to use to break out of slavery from their capitalistic masters, but to me it's purpose is based upon a manufactured lie and is in fact slavery and subservience to a guilt-based existence, much the same way that the sinners of previous ages would walk around freezing in hairshirts or other penitential garments to atone for what they did supposedly did wrong. It's a modern form of penitential enslavement. I disagree on the capitalism-as-evil meme too, but this isn't a politics forum.

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 » Sat Apr 18, 2015 4:57 am

I think you folks are discussing things pretty well, and gluing your communications to one another in a desire to get some truth from one another. Despite the occasional snipe at one another, we are mostly going forward.

You are both making interesting points about specifics, and only disagreeing (mainly) on the general assumptions we can make from those specifics.
I'd agree though that maybe it's equally absurd that 2 million years ago humans discovered fire and did nothing substantial until 10,000 years ago when they apparently started farming.
I think we can all agree on this strange and unrealistic concept. So let's work together to unravel it.

To moderate this discussion is not necessary if you would moderate yourselves in the following way. Please allow me to propose these rules for the discussion:

Ataraxia, please do stop using straw man arguments. Address ReadyToBeDeployed's specific historic points. In any case, even if you don't, I would very much like to hear ReadyToBeDeployed's arguments.

ReadyToBeDeployed, stop accusing Ataraxia of being the only one using hearsay or second- and third-hand sources. You are too. Please improve your punctuation and try not to be emotionally invested in an argument. Ataraxia is correct that you must make (at least temporarily cogent) arguments for any given source to be considered 'trustworthy'. Ataraxia, you might take note of that as well.

I would guess it is satisfying enough to readers to at least bring up your points about how documents are kept, e.g.; the names and dates issues you mentioned. Both of you have done well making specific points. Let us stick to specifics and not get too personal.

As far as I'm concerned ReadyToBeDeployed is making good points so far, but they are getting caught up in a resistance to those points. It is also drawing out good points from Ataraxia.

Let us give everyone some space to explore these topics without immediately questioning each other's credibilities right away. We all know that none of us trusts another here, and that's okay. Let's move on to the specific points and proofs.

Thank you, and I hope you agree and find my little interruption inspiring rather than annoying.

Ataraxia
Member
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 1:15 am

Re: Velikovsky, Fomenko, and the reinterpretation of History

Unread post by Ataraxia » Sat Apr 18, 2015 6:16 am

I'm completely open to the idea of the past not being what we are led to believe, as my statement about fire, or my post about dinosaurs shows. I apologize if I sniped (though it truly was done in good humor) or misspoke. All his insults don't even bother me honestly, he can insult away as far as I'm concerned. But hoi, you've stated elsewhere that this forum is above all about trying to reveal the truth by refuting or confirming the evidence we're given by the media/government. The onus is upon him to show us something so we can truly learn. He states he has thousands of documents scanned onto his computer but he hasn't uploaded one as evidence? To me, it's the same situation as someone saying they knew someone who died on 9/11. They can argue forever the point with you, but refuse to offer any true proof. I agree though that some narrower topic should be focused on. Not that it was even my intention to post back and forth, point-versus-point, but for whoever would like to question his points.

Edit: I'd like to add, I'm reading Don Quixote right now in fact, and it's suprising that the main theme of the novel is how he suggests there is no difference between fictional works and historical works, and the only difference is that the texts the authorities say are true become the ones we accept as truth. It's like reading 1984, but written 400 years ago. This is what we see even now: that people will go watch The Avengers at the theatre and be dazzled by the CGI and accept that it's fantasy, yet they come home and see the exact same CGI in the news and believe absolutely that it's real.

Post Reply