Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Anatoly Fomenko?


  • Please log in to reply
221 replies to this topic

#16    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 June 2013 - 09:29 PM

View PostVan Gorp, on 05 June 2013 - 09:27 PM, said:

Roughly: He thought that Germania was written in the eighth century inspired by a work of Pseudo-Berosus, another forgery as he believed.

I must check some things then I will try to respond to you.

JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."

#17    Tutankhaten-pasheri

Tutankhaten-pasheri

    Buratinologist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined:22 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:страна дураков

Posted 05 June 2013 - 09:32 PM

The Morozov mentioned by Van Gorp is Nikolai Alexandrovich Morosov. Long dead and one of the original revolutionaries. Intelligent and honest man. Yet he had been drawn into this strange error about human history being deliberately falsified, and that events thousands of years apart can be the same events,or only a few decades apart. I have struggled trying to understand this error for a few years and still see no reason for it, no reason why an intelligent man like Morosov has made such a ridiculous error.
http://ru.wikipedia....

Edited by Tutankhaten-pasheri, 05 June 2013 - 09:36 PM.


#18    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,180 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 07 June 2013 - 04:13 PM

Personally I prefer radiocarbon dating and dendrochronology before anything Fomenko cooked up with his 'statistics'.




#19    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,180 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 07 June 2013 - 04:29 PM

Example:

* The most probable prototype of historical Jesus was a Byzantine emperor, Andronikos I Komnenos (allegedly AD 1152 to 1185), known for his failed reforms, his traits and deeds reflected in 'biographies' of many real and imaginary persons

http://en.wikipedia....ology_(Fomenko)

They have found the Nag Hammadi manuscripts. Many of them mentioned Jesus, and they have been radiocarbon dated to a couple of centuries CE.

And then this:

* Archaeological dating, dendrochronological dating, paleographical dating, numismatic dating, carbon dating, and other methods of dating of ancient sources and artifacts known today are erroneous, non-exact or dependent on traditional chronology.

http://en.wikipedia....ology_(Fomenko)

That is pure nonsense spouted by someone trying to sell his books, or by someone totally ignorant concerning radiocarbon dating and dendrochronology.

.

Edited by Abramelin, 07 June 2013 - 05:08 PM.


#20    Van Gorp

Van Gorp

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 760 posts
  • Joined:26 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 07 June 2013 - 05:56 PM

View PostAbramelin, on 07 June 2013 - 04:29 PM, said:

Example:

* The most probable prototype of historical Jesus was a Byzantine emperor, Andronikos I Komnenos (allegedly AD 1152 to 1185), known for his failed reforms, his traits and deeds reflected in 'biographies' of many real and imaginary persons

http://en.wikipedia....ology_(Fomenko)

They have found the Nag Hammadi manuscripts. Many of them mentioned Jesus, and they have been radiocarbon dated to a couple of centuries CE.

And then this:

* Archaeological dating, dendrochronological dating, paleographical dating, numismatic dating, carbon dating, and other methods of dating of ancient sources and artifacts known today are erroneous, non-exact or dependent on traditional chronology.

http://en.wikipedia....ology_(Fomenko)

That is pure nonsense spouted by someone trying to sell his books, or by someone totally ignorant concerning radiocarbon dating and dendrochronology.

.


As if Scaliger used radiocarbon to determine his fiction stories lol
Not much changed since then for many datings of events.

Accuracy of C14 is questionned by many, that's not something of Fomenko.


#21    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,180 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 07 June 2013 - 05:58 PM

View PostVan Gorp, on 07 June 2013 - 05:56 PM, said:

As if Scaliger used radiocarbon to determine his fiction stories lol
Not much changed since then for many datings of events.

Accuracy of C14 is questionned by many, that's not something of Fomenko.

It's questioned by those who have another favorite chronology.

But most do not understand what they don't want to believe in. And Fomenko is one of them.

He is in a great need to sell his books.

I don't blame him for that, I just don't believe him.

I do have an open mind, but my open mind is not a sewer.



.

Edited by Abramelin, 07 June 2013 - 06:06 PM.


#22    Van Gorp

Van Gorp

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 760 posts
  • Joined:26 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 07 June 2013 - 06:41 PM

View PostAbramelin, on 07 June 2013 - 05:58 PM, said:

It's questioned by those who have another favorite chronology.

But most do not understand what they don't want to believe in. And Fomenko is one of them.

He is in a great need to sell his books.

I don't blame him for that, I just don't believe him.

I do have an open mind, but my open mind is not a sewer.



.

Fair enough,  I found following quote on www.archaeologyexpert.co.uk

Archaeologists are Concerned

The unreliability of carbon 14 date testing is a great concern to honest archaeologists. They get particularly concerned when C14 testing shows obviously inaccurate results and they are left in uncertainty about the reliability of the dates that they have previously never questioned.


#23    Van Gorp

Van Gorp

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 760 posts
  • Joined:26 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 07 June 2013 - 09:48 PM

View Postskytwister, on 05 June 2013 - 11:11 AM, said:

Am just curious if anyone has heard of Fomenko or read his works. I just started skimming through some of his books (if anyone reads Russian, I have them in pdf form and am happy to share). He's a mathematician but is mostly known for his ideas in historical revisionism. http://en.wikipedia....Anatoly_Fomenko there's a short paragraph on wiki, basically saying that our notion of time and occurence of events is inaccurate.

Say Skytwister, delving into the books and got lost ;-)
A nice topic is the one where he links English pretended history as that of Byzantium (say Byzantine Angeli that went to Engeland and took their history books with them :-)

What do you think: amusing so far as you could read or allready doubting?


#24    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,180 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 08 June 2013 - 02:45 AM

View PostVan Gorp, on 07 June 2013 - 06:41 PM, said:

Fair enough,  I found following quote on www.archaeologyexpert.co.uk

Archaeologists are Concerned

The unreliability of carbon 14 date testing is a great concern to honest archaeologists. They get particularly concerned when C14 testing shows obviously inaccurate results and they are left in uncertainty about the reliability of the dates that they have previously never questioned.

Radiocarbon dates are calibrated using dendrochronology.


.

Edited by Abramelin, 08 June 2013 - 02:45 AM.


#25    Tutankhaten-pasheri

Tutankhaten-pasheri

    Buratinologist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined:22 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:страна дураков

Posted 08 June 2013 - 06:56 PM

And as for dating, for seeing how long ago an event occured, we have had civilisations that have kept a continuos dating system ongoing for a long time. In China, in Japan for instance. In Europe we can use the Roman dating system from the foundation of Rome to the change to the Christian system that takes us up to the present day. So only using the Roman/Christian system, we have a record of events that we can reasonably, if not completely rely on, from 753 BC to 2013 AD. Fomenko denies this, and it is his madness.


#26    Van Gorp

Van Gorp

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 760 posts
  • Joined:26 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 08 June 2013 - 09:22 PM

That is interesting: the foundation of Rome: 753 BC (or approx).

Are we mainly relying on this because of archeological evidence in the first place, that pointed straight forward and independent of other assumptions to 2766 years back in time?
Or are we relying in the first place on second hand/copy documents, references that popped up in the middleages.


#27    Tutankhaten-pasheri

Tutankhaten-pasheri

    Buratinologist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined:22 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:страна дураков

Posted 08 June 2013 - 09:56 PM

View PostVan Gorp, on 08 June 2013 - 09:22 PM, said:

That is interesting: the foundation of Rome: 753 BC (or approx).

Are we mainly relying on this because of archeological evidence in the first place, that pointed straight forward and independent of other assumptions to 2766 years back in time?
Or are we relying in the first place on second hand/copy documents, references that popped up in the middleages.
From Roman documents surviving from those times, some in Egypt, some from Vindolanda, and other places. From inscriptions carved into tombs, surviving buildings, monuments. Cross reference from surviving sources from other civilisations contiguous with Rome, for instance Greece, Egypt, Persia, Israel. And perhaps most importantly from Roman coins. And let us not forget the very existance of Pompei and Herculaneum with the original documents from those times slowly being conserved and read. The evidence for the historical timeline is rather overwhelming and will not be overturned by a few people who are either charlatans out for $, or a few contrarians and malcontents. This is yet another of those cases were evidence must be presented to show the timelines are false, evidence, not simply saying it isn't believed.


#28    jaylemurph

jaylemurph

    "If we would know, then we would be more wisdomed."

  • Member
  • 9,551 posts
  • Joined:02 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle, WA

  • "You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make him think." Dorothy Parker

Posted 08 June 2013 - 10:32 PM

View PostTutankhaten-pasheri, on 08 June 2013 - 09:56 PM, said:

From Roman documents surviving from those times, some in Egypt, some from Vindolanda, and other places. From inscriptions carved into tombs, surviving buildings, monuments. Cross reference from surviving sources from other civilisations contiguous with Rome, for instance Greece, Egypt, Persia, Israel. And perhaps most importantly from Roman coins. And let us not forget the very existance of Pompei and Herculaneum with the original documents from those times slowly being conserved and read. The evidence for the historical timeline is rather overwhelming and will not be overturned by a few people who are either charlatans out for $, or a few contrarians and malcontents. This is yet another of those cases were evidence must be presented to show the timelines are false, evidence, not simply saying it isn't believed.

The Romans never used the AUC system (ab Urbe Condita -- literally, from the founding of the City) extensively. It tended to be used by later peoples referring back to established history. Typically the Romans dated things using the names of the two consuls appointed for that year -- anno X Yque consulibus, for example.

The strongest argument for the 753 BCE date comes from Livy's book(s) also called ab Urbe Condita. When he was writing, about the turn of BCE to CE, he was able to confer with linen scrolls kept in temples, bronze plaques affixed to temples in Rome, and from popular and family traditions, very little of which still exist, or existed 1,000 years ago. But Livy often points out the difficulty in establishing solid dates in his text; he often points out different versions of stories, or alternate dating. We can sometimes spot other errors he wasn't aware of or deliberately hid (there's a gap in his record of five years, for instance, he completely glosses over with some excuse like "nobody did anything for five years" or "the records were deliberately destroyed by the Senate"). The dates he provided, as stated above, have been cross-referenced with records from other sources and from archaeological and historical studies, but even he complains about the difficulty in establishing the very earliest history and dates of Rome.

--Jaylemurph

"... amongst the most obstinate of our opinions may be classed those which derive from discussions in which we affect to search for the truth, while in reality we are only fortifying prejudice."     -- James Fenimore Cooper, The Pathfinder

Posted Image

Deeply venial

#29    Tutankhaten-pasheri

Tutankhaten-pasheri

    Buratinologist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined:22 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:страна дураков

Posted 08 June 2013 - 10:47 PM

View Postjaylemurph, on 08 June 2013 - 10:32 PM, said:

The Romans never used the AUC system (ab Urbe Condita -- literally, from the founding of the City) extensively. It tended to be used by later peoples referring back to established history. Typically the Romans dated things using the names of the two consuls appointed for that year -- anno X Yque consulibus, for example.

The strongest argument for the 753 BCE date comes from Livy's book(s) also called ab Urbe Condita. When he was writing, about the turn of BCE to CE, he was able to confer with linen scrolls kept in temples, bronze plaques affixed to temples in Rome, and from popular and family traditions, very little of which still exist, or existed 1,000 years ago. But Livy often points out the difficulty in establishing solid dates in his text; he often points out different versions of stories, or alternate dating. We can sometimes spot other errors he wasn't aware of or deliberately hid (there's a gap in his record of five years, for instance, he completely glosses over with some excuse like "nobody did anything for five years" or "the records were deliberately destroyed by the Senate"). The dates he provided, as stated above, have been cross-referenced with records from other sources and from archaeological and historical studies, but even he complains about the difficulty in establishing the very earliest history and dates of Rome.

--Jaylemurph
I know, I was just being brief. The exact date of the founding of Rome and some events following will always be clouded, but we know with some certainty to put them within a general bracket of decades. Certainly nothing to move all of Roman history into a few years in the middle ages.


#30    Van Gorp

Van Gorp

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 760 posts
  • Joined:26 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 08 June 2013 - 11:16 PM

So Rome was founded some 2700 years back (take or leave some hundred years) following Livy:

For the sport and because I'm willing to learn more: apart from cross references, what archeological evidence made you believe Rome was founded 2700 years back and not fe some 800 years back?




Mr. Renfrew, the Cambridge archeologist, warned against ''a dangerous circularity that comes of digging where the literature says to dig and then finding what the literature says you are supposed to find.''
''There has to be something very particular in the legend that correlates to something very particular in the archeological evidence before you can draw a connection,'' he added, ''not just a wall but a wall with some specific peculiarity.''





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users