skytwister Posted June 5, 2013 #1 Share Posted June 5, 2013 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.org/wiki/Anatoly_Fomenko there's a short paragraph on wiki, basically saying that our notion of time and occurence of events is inaccurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tutankhaten-pasheri Posted June 5, 2013 #2 Share Posted June 5, 2013 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. He is a fantasist in this affair of "New chronology" and is laughed at. Don't waste your time with this, there is nothing. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Gorp Posted June 5, 2013 #3 Share Posted June 5, 2013 He is a fantasist in this affair of "New chronology" and is laughed at. Don't waste your time with this, there is nothing. Exactly, don't let others decide. If you want to investigate (not only) his theory: good luck. It's worth the study. I do not regret. You don't have to approve all details of his view, but that view in general is held by more historians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted June 5, 2013 #4 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Critics have accused Fomenko of altering the data to improve the fit with his ideas and have noted that he violates a key rule of statistics by selecting matches from the historical record which support his chronology, while ignoring those which do not, creating artificial, better-than-chance correlations, and that these practices undermine Fomenko's statistical arguments. The new chronology was given a comprehensive critical analysis in a round table on "The 'Myths' of New Chronology" chaired by the dean of the department of history of Moscow State University in December 1999. One of the participants in that round table, the distinguished Russian archaeologist, Valentin Yanin, compared Fomenko's work to "the sleight of hand trickery of a David Copperfield". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_%28Fomenko%29#Reception 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tutankhaten-pasheri Posted June 5, 2013 #5 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Fomenko also has a lot of books to sell. Always the books are part of some jigsaw, so if you want to know more, then you have to buy another book. And always the same excuse for this saying that his "science" is so new that he has to constantly write new books to keep up with everything. Clearly..... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted June 5, 2013 #6 Share Posted June 5, 2013 I guess his 'hero' was Erich von Däniken. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted June 5, 2013 #7 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Exactly, don't let others decide. If you want to investigate (not only) his theory: good luck. It's worth the study. I do not regret. You don't have to approve all details of his view, but that view in general is held by more historians. Could you name a few of these historians? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmt_sesh Posted June 5, 2013 #8 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Sounds like the Russian version of David Rohl. Both advocate "new chronologies." Both twist and distort the evidence, not to mention ignoring a lot of it. Both can be safely ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Gorp Posted June 5, 2013 #9 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Could you name a few of these historians? Before Hardouin, very recent Rita Monaldi. For the rest scientists/scholare of different kind had doubts in the same line: Leo Wiener talked about blatant forgery concerning Tacitus' Germania. Morosov and his studies were a great inspiration for Fomenko. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted June 5, 2013 #10 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Leo Wiener talked about blatant forgery concerning Tacitus' Germania. What forgery? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted June 5, 2013 #11 Share Posted June 5, 2013 (edited) Fomenko claim that Trojan war and the Crusades were the same historical event and that Genghis Khan and the Mongols were actually Russians. Well Mr. Fomenko I wonder who fight on Kalka river then? Also Jesuits were called schoolmasters of Europe. They didnt fabricated nothing as Fomenko thinks. Edited June 5, 2013 by the L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted June 5, 2013 #12 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Both can be safely ignored. I dont know for Rohl but Fomenko will be ignored from now on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Gorp Posted June 5, 2013 #13 Share Posted June 5, 2013 What forgery? What What forgery? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted June 5, 2013 #14 Share Posted June 5, 2013 (edited) What What forgery? You said that Leo Wiener talked about blatant forgery concerning Tacitus' Germania. Do you know on what Leo thought? Edited June 5, 2013 by the L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Gorp Posted June 5, 2013 #15 Share Posted June 5, 2013 You said that Leo Wiener talked about blatant forgery concerning Tacitus' Germania. Do you know on what Leo thought? Roughly: He thought that Germania was written in the eighth century inspired by a work of Pseudo-Berosus, another forgery as he believed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Voodoo Posted June 5, 2013 #16 Share Posted June 5, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tutankhaten-pasheri Posted June 5, 2013 #17 Share Posted June 5, 2013 (edited) 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....юционер) Edited June 5, 2013 by Tutankhaten-pasheri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted June 7, 2013 #18 Share Posted June 7, 2013 Personally I prefer radiocarbon dating and dendrochronology before anything Fomenko cooked up with his 'statistics'. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted June 7, 2013 #19 Share Posted June 7, 2013 (edited) 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.org/wiki/New_Chronology_%28Fomenko%29 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.org/wiki/New_Chronology_%28Fomenko%29 That is pure nonsense spouted by someone trying to sell his books, or by someone totally ignorant concerning radiocarbon dating and dendrochronology. . Edited June 7, 2013 by Abramelin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Gorp Posted June 7, 2013 #20 Share Posted June 7, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted June 7, 2013 #21 Share Posted June 7, 2013 (edited) 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 June 7, 2013 by Abramelin 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Gorp Posted June 7, 2013 #22 Share Posted June 7, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Gorp Posted June 7, 2013 #23 Share Posted June 7, 2013 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? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted June 8, 2013 #24 Share Posted June 8, 2013 (edited) 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 June 8, 2013 by Abramelin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tutankhaten-pasheri Posted June 8, 2013 #25 Share Posted June 8, 2013 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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now