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.

Velikovsky, Fomenko, and the reinterpretation of History

Unread postby fbenario on Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:27 am

[The initial posts in this thread have been moved here from the "Introduce yourself" thread where this discussion started. -nonhocapito]

Juju-la-trouvaille wrote:For some time I also became very skeptical about anything that relates to antiquity : Dinausores, archaeological discoveries (Thoutankamon…), ancient buildings in Egypte, Greece, Rome, in south America…

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_%28Fomenko%29
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2223
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Unread postby Juju-la-trouvaille on Fri Oct 07, 2011 4:32 pm

fbenario wrote:
Juju-la-trouvaille wrote:For some time I also became very skeptical about anything that relates to antiquity : Dinausores, archaeological discoveries (Thoutankamon…), ancient buildings in Egypte, Greece, Rome, in south America…

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_%28Fomenko%29


Hi,

Sorry for the late answer.

I had not heard about Fomenko yet, even if I already read here and there articles with the same subjet. Thus, thank you for the information.

Having said that, this theory does not surprise me.

In a study on history, documents, papers are essentials. Now printing only dates from the end of the middel-age and also let us add that Gutenberg was only developing the « mobility » of the characters, he didn’t work on a rotary press. That only came later.

And before printing, what did we have ? Hand-written books and rollers and this on relatively fragile supports ! And I speak about the 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th centuries. Now, if we go back up to 20 centuries ago during the roman period and 30 or 40 centuries ago during the egyptian period. What was the preservation of the papers like, on which support ? Stones ? The Roseta Stones ? It seems fake. The cut of the front face o this stone is too perfect ! It was necessary to use a (mechanical) stone saw to obtain such a perfect cut. Now a (mechanical) stone saw supposes, besides a driving strenght (windmill, watermill), a good mastery of the metal industry to obtain the « blade » of the saw. One question : did it already exist 3 o 4,000 years ago ? (*)

Thus, on the basis of which papers, the historians would have been able to redraw the history of « ancient Rome », « antique Greece », « antique Egypt » ? Was it realized just by oral transmission ? Over such a long perdiod, I think it’s unbelievable.

This is a first thing.

Now, a more spectacular thing. I’m going to tell you about an antique, very well-known building wich I stopped believing : Coliseum of Rome. We are told that this building would have been built in 80 AD. And that we would have organized gladiatorial fights with lions, there ! Only that !

Then now, imagine the expedition it is (was) to go and look for one of those lion : crossing +/- 3,000 km up to the centre of Africa (of the unknown Africa, i would add), finding it and then catching it and mastering it WITHOUT HURTING IT, and only with nets and lances and then sending it to Rome, again +/- 3,000 km to cross back, feeding the animal… Do you imagine this kind of expedition. ?!

And a lion is very powerful :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_KPmxBcb1c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=cFknacYQaUE


The building itself :

Image

Image

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.
Juju-la-trouvaille
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 8:08 pm

Unread postby Sasha on Fri Oct 07, 2011 4:33 pm

fbenario wrote:
Juju-la-trouvaille wrote:For some time I also became very skeptical about anything that relates to antiquity : Dinausores, archaeological discoveries (Thoutankamon…), ancient buildings in Egypte, Greece, Rome, in south America…

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_%28Fomenko%29



Dear fbenario,

I know this question wasn't for me but I'm curious why you find it hard to take Fomenko seriously. Is it a particular book, a subject, or just in general?
I have all 4 of his books published in english and have read them, more or less, over the years.

Sasha
Sasha
Member
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm

Unread postby fbenario on Sat Oct 08, 2011 12:07 am

Sasha wrote:Dear fbenario,

I know this question wasn't for me but I'm curious why you find it hard to take Fomenko seriously. Is it a particular book, a subject, or just in general?

It's my understanding that a lot of the buildings/ruins/remains from Ancient History have been 'carbon 14-dated'. Is every single one of those dates a manipulation?
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2223
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Unread postby Maat on Sat Oct 08, 2011 11:29 am

Juju-la-trouvaille wrote:...
Now, a more spectacular thing. I’m going to tell you about an antique, very well-known building wich I stopped believing : Coliseum of Rome. We are told that this building would have been built in 80 AD. And that we would have organized gladiatorial fights with lions, there ! Only that !

If that's your idea of real "research" it's not an impressive start here. I would recommend your reading a lot more about ancient Rome and the Colosseum, aka Flavian Amphitheatre, (construction of which began under emperor Vespasian in 70-72 AD, completed under Titus 80 AD), before posting such uninformed opinions.

The Romans were very literate, by the way, and recorded everything in Latin...you know, that dead language most western languages are based on (taught in most schools up until the 50s & still in some!*).

The Romans' lust for their bloody circus entertainment caused the virtual extinction of many wild animal species that were originally native to the Mediterranean (including lions!), North Africa and Asia. The trade in such animals was obviously a very lucrative business for the peoples in those outer reaches of the Roman Empire.
Further ref:
http://www.mariamilani.com/colosseum/colosseum.htm
http://www.roman-colosseum.info/colosse ... osseum.htm
http://www.endangeredspecieshandbook.or ... _roman.php

Unfortunately, Fomenko is to real historical research/revision what the 9-11 "truth" movement is to September Clues :P
However, if you are interested in sensible, meticulous research and revision of discrepancies in the chronology of ancient history (taught by academia as dogma), I'd recommend Ages in Chaos by Velikovsky (in 1952)

* The practice of teaching Latin in schools was brilliantly lampooned by the Monty Python team in their comic satire Life of Brian (video clip of scene with full transcript in notes) :D
Maat
Member
 
Posts: 1422
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:14 am

Unread postby brianv on Sat Oct 08, 2011 1:11 pm

Romanus eunt domus
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm

Unread postby Maat on Sat Oct 08, 2011 1:27 pm

brianv wrote:Romanus eunt domus

What's this, then? "Romanes Eunt Domus"? 'People called Romanes they go the house'? :P
Maat
Member
 
Posts: 1422
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:14 am

Velikovsky, Fomenko, and the reinterpretation of History

Unread postby Sasha on Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:10 pm

fbenario wrote:
It's my understanding that a lot of the buildings/ruins/remains from Ancient History have been 'carbon 14-dated'. Is every single one of those dates a manipulation?


I’m not sure how can one carbon date a whole building/ruin; if that was done in the past It would be interesting to know how it was done. However, the problems with the accuracy of the so called carbon dating are well known to many people. Here are just a few examples:

"When the blood of a seal, freshly killed at McMurdo Sound in the Antarctic was tested by carbon-14, it showed the seal had died 1,300 years ago."
From W. Dort Jr., Ph.D. -- Geology, Professor, University of Kansas

"The hair on the Chekurovka mammoth was found to have a carbon-14 age of 26,000 years but the peaty soil in which it was preserved was found to have a carbon-14 dating of only 5,600 years."
("Dry bones and other fossils" by Dr. Gary Parker)

"Scientists got dates of 164 million and 3 billion years for two Hawaiian lava flows. But these lava flows happened only about 200 years ago in 1800 and 1801.
(Radiocarbon Journal, Vol. 8, 1966.)

"The Carbon-14 contents of the shells of the snails of Melanoides tuberculatus living today in artesian springs in southern Nevada indicate an apparent age of 27,000 years."
Alan C. Riggs, Science, vol 224 (1984) 58-61

"In the light what is known about the radiocarbon method and the way it is used, it is truly astonishing that many authors will cite agreeable determinations as a "proof" for their beliefs. The implications of pervasive contamination and ancient variations in carbon-14 levels are steadfastly ignored by those who based their argument upon the dates. The radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates.
’This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read’."
Robert E. Lee, Radiocarbon: Ages in Error, Anthropological Journal of Canada


Maat wrote:Unfortunately, Fomenko is to real historical research/revision what the 9-11 "truth" movement is to September Clues :P
However, if you are interested in sensible, meticulous research and revision of discrepancies in the chronology of ancient history (taught by academia as dogma), I'd recommend Ages in Chaos by Velikovsky (in 1952)



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.
Sasha
Member
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm

Unread postby fbenario on Tue Oct 11, 2011 12:52 am

Sasha wrote: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.

Thanks for that research on carbon-14 dating. I suppose I should have known better than to automatically assume its accuracy. Which of Fomenko's conclusions to you think worth researching, and which do you think are ridiculous?
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2223
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Unread postby Maat on Tue Oct 11, 2011 5:55 am

­
Sasha wrote:
Maat wrote:Unfortunately, Fomenko is to real historical research/revision what the 9-11 "truth" movement is to September Clues :P
However, if you are interested in sensible, meticulous research and revision of discrepancies in the chronology of ancient history (taught by academia as dogma), I'd recommend Ages in Chaos by Velikovsky (in 1952)

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

Unread postby Sasha on Tue Oct 11, 2011 7:51 pm

Maat wrote:­
Sasha wrote:
Maat wrote:Unfortunately, Fomenko is to real historical research/revision what the 9-11 "truth" movement is to September Clues :P
However, if you are interested in sensible, meticulous research and revision of discrepancies in the chronology of ancient history (taught by academia as dogma), I'd recommend Ages in Chaos by Velikovsky (in 1952)

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.
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.
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)?
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.
Sasha
Member
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm

Unread postby Sasha on Tue Oct 11, 2011 7:55 pm

fbenario wrote:Thanks for that research on carbon-14 dating. I suppose I should have known better than to automatically assume its accuracy. Which of Fomenko's conclusions to you think worth researching, and which do you think are ridiculous?


By telling you what to look for (or avoid) I would be leading you and I think you will agree that that’s not the best approach. It seems that VOL. I is the best place to start. You can get it here for $10:
http://www.amazon.com/History-mathemati ... 274&sr=1-1

A while ago I saw all four books in PDF on the internet as well. But I don’t want to compromise this forum by posting a download link for copyrighted material.
Sasha
Member
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm

Unread postby nonhocapito on Tue Oct 11, 2011 10:26 pm

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...
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2554
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy

Unread postby fbenario on Wed Oct 12, 2011 12:52 pm

Sasha wrote:
fbenario wrote:Thanks for that research on carbon-14 dating. I suppose I should have known better than to automatically assume its accuracy. Which of Fomenko's conclusions to you think worth researching, and which do you think are ridiculous?


By telling you what to look for (or avoid) I would be leading you and I think you will agree that that’s not the best approach. It seems that VOL. I is the best place to start. You can get it here for $10:
http://www.amazon.com/History-mathemati ... 274&sr=1-1

I disagree with you very strongly. I want your lead and assistance in beginning to understand Fomenko's work and theories.

On this forum there are 1000s of posts by members sharing their research/theories/thoughts. Why are you hesitant to share your conclusions with us to help us learn? Besides, I don't have time to read a book on every single subject in which I'm interested. No one does. Please help us all begin to understand Fomenko by telling us your conclusions on what parts of his work seem legitimate and supportable (and why), and which parts seem suspicious and unlikely.

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.

I want to know what you've concluded on all this. Thanks for helping teach me, and all the other members here, about Fomenko.
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2223
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Unread postby Sasha on Wed Oct 12, 2011 7:18 pm

fbenario wrote:
Sasha wrote:
fbenario wrote:Thanks for that research on carbon-14 dating. I suppose I should have known better than to automatically assume its accuracy. Which of Fomenko's conclusions to you think worth researching, and which do you think are ridiculous?


By telling you what to look for (or avoid) I would be leading you and I think you will agree that that’s not the best approach. It seems that VOL. I is the best place to start. You can get it here for $10:
http://www.amazon.com/History-mathemati ... 274&sr=1-1

I disagree with you very strongly. I want your lead and assistance in beginning to understand Fomenko's work and theories.

On this forum there are 1000s of posts by members sharing their research/theories/thoughts. Why are you hesitant to share your conclusions with us to help us learn? Besides, I don't have time to read a book on every single subject in which I'm interested. No one does. Please help us all begin to understand Fomenko by telling us your conclusions on what parts of his work seem legitimate and supportable (and why), and which parts seem suspicious and unlikely.

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.

I want to know what you've concluded on all this. Thanks for helping teach me, and all the other members here, about Fomenko.




All 4 books in English have more than 2500 pages together. He used 1492 books & sources in a period of thirty odd years of research. How were you hoping to disprove him if you are not willing to even read the introduction in Volume I?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not hesitant to share my thoughts on anything that I’m familiar with, but we need to have some basics sorted out first.
Btw, this is not just any subject, in my humble opinion, but probably the biggest one there is, after how God created this world, of course.

But ok, I’ll share a few thoughts with you:
The weakest points are his linguistic interpretations, or shall I say improvisations. It’s rather embarrassing to read them sometimes (Hapsburg = NovGorod, he keeps on suggesting/insisting).
The other one is the “Russian bent”. Like Russia was some focal point in the past while it is obvious that it is/was the backwater of Europe (archeological evidence on the ground doesn’t go deeper than 30-40cm). From what I can see he gives credence to Pan Slavism, the laughable theory of the so-called Slavs moving en-masse West and South from (“mother”) Russia.
Then there is the lack of acknowledgment of any underground-dark forces, the real movers and shakers, the forces that destroyed the actual evidence and created this virtual History. Ok, he mentions the Jesuits, but more in a sort of neutral way, without mentioning that they were formed and controlled by crypto Jews.
He correctly states that the Aegean cities were outposts of the Crusaders, but fails to conclude, in my opinion, that they were in fact pirates, which all Crusaders were.
I also agree that the so-called Byzantium was the original Roman Empire, later moved to the city of Rome (there is so much more to this).

S.

There is a shorter book (a rip-off) that uses basically the research from Fomenko’s team, with some extra bits, if you can ignore the blatant Jewish propaganda. The English translation from Russian is bad though.
http://www.amazon.com/Medieval-Empire-I ... 817&sr=1-1
Sasha
Member
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm

Next

Return to General World Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest