Has history been really tampered with? Conclusions

Has history been really tampered with? New Chronology theory complies with the most rigid scientific standards:It gives a coherent explanation of what we already know; It is consistent: independent lines of inquiry all lead to the same conclusion;
CLICK ON AMAZON.COM LINK!
The predictions it makes are confirmed empirically; New Chronology goes by the following basic axioms: - Chronology is the basis of history; - Human evolution has always been linear, gradual and irreversible; - The "cyclic" nature of human civilization is a myth, likewise all the gaps, duplicates, "dark ages" and "renaissances" that we know from consensual history are fantasy and hoax; - The accumulation of geographical knowledge as reflected in cartography is a gradual and irreversible process; - The closer in time is a given manuscript to the events described the less distortions it contains; - There is no "useless" information in authentic ancient sources. So, why the mainstream historians do not gratify mathematician Academician Doctor Professor Fomenko with thanks, laurels and medals? The Russians: Because Fomenko asserts that there was no such thing as the Tartar and Mongol invasion followed by over two centuries of slavery, providing a formidable body of documental evidence to prove his assertion. The so-called "Tartars and Mongols" were the actual ancestors of the modern Russians, living in a trilingual state with Arabic and Turkic spoken as freely as Russian. The ancient Russian state was governed by a double structure of civil and military authorities. The hordes were actually professional armies with a tradition of lifelong conscription (the recruitment being the so-called "blood tax"). Their "invasions" were punitive operations against the regions that attempted tax evasion. Fomenko proves that official Russian history is a blatant forgery concocted by a host of German scholars brought to Russia by the usurper dynasty of the Romanovs. Their ascension to the throne was the result of conspiracy, so they charged these historians with the mission of making Romanov's reign look legitimate. Fomenko proves Ivan the Terrible to be a collation of four rulers, no less. They represented the two rival dynasties - the legitimate rulers and the ambitious upstarts. Over some 30 years of controversy, Russian historians have made a most remarkable transition - they were initially accusing the young brilliant mathematician Fomenko of anticommunist dissident activity and attempts to deface the historical legacy of Soviet Russia; nowadays the middle-aged mathematician is accused of adhering to "pro-communist Russian nationalism" and defacing the proud historical legacy of Great Russia. The Westerners: Because Fomenko blows consensual Russian history to smithereens, successfully removing a crucial cornerstone from underneath the otherwise impeccable edifice of World History. Fomenko adds insult to injury, wiping out one by one: the Ancient Rome: the foundation of Rome in Italy is dated to the 14th century A. D., the Ancient Greece and its numerous poleis, which he identifies as the mediaeval crusader settlements on the territory of Greece. The Ancient Egypt: the pyramids of Giza become dated to the 11th to 14th century A. D. and identified as the royal cemetery of the Global "Mongolian" Empire, no less. The civilization of the Ancient Egypt is irrefutably dated to the 11th to 15th century A. D. with the aid of the ancient Egyptian horoscopes cut in stone, like enormous Denderah horoscope that hangs in main entrance to the Louvre museum in Paris. He was the first one to decipher and date all such horoscopes, coming up with mediaeval dates in every case. English historians rage at the suggestion that the history of Ancient England was de facto a Byzantine import transplanted to the English soil by the fugitive Byzantine nobility. To reward the English historians who consider themselves the true scribes of World History, the cover of the present book portrays Tintoretto's Jesus Christ crucified on the Big Ben.

Category:

Travel & Events

Tags:

• Jesus
• da
• Vinci
• code
• ancient
• history
• channel
• today
• judas
• gospel
• ptolemy
• cleopatra
• apocalypse
• greece
• egypt
• rome
• louvre
• england
• germany
• france
• italy
• monk
• manuscript

[beyo5]

Crap! I try to write a book with reliable factsand I probably won't even get published, but if I write a series of books full of bullshit I could get great wads of cash flung at me by an army of doped out conspiracy theorists who'll believe anything. How about this premise: the Big Floppy-Eared Bunny laid down the eggs of Reality and so that is how we perceive history - can I get my wad of cash now?

[kelco93]

I think Fomenko read Dan Brown and thought "This conspiracy stuff sells like hot cakes. I can do better, and make more money!"

Everything I've seen on this looks like a trailer for the latest blockbuster. It's very rare to find hype and truth in the same package. Still it might be an entertaining read if he can write better than Dan Brown (and who can't?) - I don't think I'll bother with it though.

[AmoebaLandsCraft]

this is silly..

[meelusine]

@suddenlyitsobvious

English is not my native langage. So I don't know if I make myself understood. But, what I mean, is that it seems like sciences can prove anything and it's contrary.

Scientists abuse themselves or/and abuse us.

[meelusine]

@suddenlyitsobvious

1) I think that each science taken separatly is wrong not only because it doesn't stand on solid ground, but because it sees only one aspect of reality, when reality encloses all possible aspects.

[meelusine]

@suddenlyitsobvious

2) The science is not wrong in itself because it does its job, as a sophisticated tool, but it's only a tool, and not the truth.

What is wrong is the lie that scientists make by selling us a tool as an ultimate truth.

For when I make a tool, I know already what it will be used for.

In another word it's like the answer is already in the question.

[suddenlyitsobvious]

@meelusine

I haven't read Fomenko either but we don't always need some outer source or authority telling us, and then deciding whether yes or no we're going to believe that authority.

That history has been completely rewritten is utterly obvious as far as I'm concerned and there are numerous ways this can be shown to be the case.

Not that I want to do that here, it's too laborious.

I don't agree with you that 'sciences are not wrong'.

There are many BLATANT LIES.

[meelusine]

@meelusine

Like you have to crack a nut to see what's inside, ok now you see what's inside but the nut is no more a nut, it's destroyed and dead.

Sciences are not wrong, they are different ways of seing the same thing.

Sorry for my bad english.

[meelusine]

@suddenlyitsobvious

the purpose of pyramids? the origins of mankind and the world?

On this those matters, we can see now that what is sold to us as sciences is mainly hypothèsis, speculations, we take it blind because we worshing science.

On this matters, different schools and theories spend their energy at refuting one another. Where is the truth there ?

Reality is one, and we human being in order to understand it, have broken it down into several sciences.

[meelusine]

@suddenlyitsobvious

I haven't searched the entire work of Fomenko, so I don't know were exactly the truth is and where we can have a legitimate dought.

For, "the moonlanding? Arabs with cutters attacking the US?

The truth there is to be found behind the façade, even a lie tells something. If one ask the right questions about this lie ?

[suddenlyitsobvious]

@meelusine

I also agree with your observations except for:

'I have come to consider there is always some truth in everything,'

What truth is there in the narrative about the moonlanding? In Arabs with cutters attacking the US? In the purpose of pyramids? In the origins of mankind and the world? etc.

I wonder if you are aware of the issue of WILLFUL distortion, of social engineering, feeding the masses massive lies that at the top of the hierarchy are KNOWN to be lies?