Anatoly Fomenko?

[Abramelin]

Hmmm, if that is the case then why are you here, because all is texts, writing on a screen. I think nothing written here will convince, and likely as more and more evidence is presented, then you will demand more and more, though it will never be enough to satisfy you I think. So, pick up your shovel and trowel and get to Rome and start digging. Then you can write a report, but as it will be "text", then don't expect it to be believed as any proof. I hope you see the point I am making.....

I think Van Gorp meant some quote from known Latin texts, for example ""Livius said this and that".

But as far as I know Romans used not only stone to carve their text on but also papyri, and some of those have been radiocarbon dated.

Same thing with the Nag Hammadi Manuscripts: these mention Jesus and have been radiocarbon dated to a couple of centuries CE, and thus far older than Fomenko wants Jesus to be.

.

Edited June 10, 2013 by Abramelin

[Van Gorp]

Ok, thnx for all the feedback (I mean that).

Jaylemurph, DieChecker, Tutankhaten-pasheri, Abe

Again the beginning of a work week, bit short of time while I’d rather spent the time discussing with you.

First: I don’t want to annoy, highjack the subject or fill space with my militant ignorance (amusing language, but clearly makes your point). I’ll take care for that.

It’s true I seem to reject some textual 'evidence', it’s my handicap and have to live with that.

But I just don’t want to stop there, that’s why I try to overcome this handicap and look where my interests go.

Taking your advice at heart and try to dig further for other archeological evidence, check further on reliability of carbon dating for specific finds.

The remnants of trees combined with ash information and Roman artifacts and foundation of Rome, I was also thinking about: but didn’t manage yet (on the net) to find a reference to the conclusive relation between those (if you can give a hint for more info: please share further).

Intersting, maybe some subject for anyone else who wants to tackle/confirm Fomenko: check what he brings concerning Pompei with the other available evidence. I’m not that far yet.

About those original texts and authenticity, I won’t drag to long but to precise myself: I think they can be handled as authentic if they are composed the same amount of years back, as the the pretended author would have lived and if we are sure it’s an original peace of text stemming from the same period. Many copies go from hand to hand, but is there prove that once an original of them existed? And if so, does the orginal meet above specs?

For an example the Germania of Tacitus. Jaylemurph, I know I lack sometimes the references but here I try to give some indications of my thoughts.

In my opinion there are 2 ways to doubt the authenticity of the text:

- How/ where and when it has been discovered (Poggio Bracciolini boosted that he had discovered half of Latin literature, mainly in German monasteries (Sankt Gallen, Reichenau Hersfeld…) Before these founds I’m told historians had nothing heard of Tacitus. If true at least something to take note off. Below a link which is actually dismissing this thought of forgery. A work with much usefull information in the line of forgery (it's a roman, oh no this won't give any credibility :-) is Mysterium of Monaldi& Sorti. Don't worry, i know they wrote the roman to sell books, but did a lot of research which they use in the afterwords.

http://www.tertullia...pearse/tacitus/ The 're-naissance' (invention) of antiquity is studied in this way in whole different light. My issue is: how trustworthy are these discoveries/types like Bracciolini.

- And a study of the Latin text itself. Because I don’t pretend to be farther in this matter than f.e. Leo Wiener, below a link to a book (not complete) where parts of his study can be seen.

http://books.google....forgery&f=false

This is my last week before holdiay, so projects at work need to be finished and little time remaining for really interesting stuff like this, so be it for this time.

But I’ll take the subjects brought on and look further, thnx.

[jaylemurph]

Ok, thnx for all the feedback (I mean that).

Jaylemurph, DieChecker, Tutankhaten-pasheri, Abe

Again the beginning of a work week, bit short of time while I’d rather spent the time discussing with you.

First: I don’t want to annoy, highjack the subject or fill space with my militant ignorance (amusing language, but clearly makes your point). I’ll take care for that.

Let me be very specific about the use of that term -- it only applies to your position in this particular discussion, not to you, personally. (There are people I would happy extend it to as an apt description, but not you.)

It’s true I seem to reject some textual 'evidence', it’s my handicap and have to live with that.

But I just don’t want to stop there, that’s why I try to overcome this handicap and look where my interests go.

As I (sort of) said, there is a certain level of skepticism that is healthy and not a handicap. Anything that keeps people on their toes, as you have done, is not without value. Going past that point, though, in dismissing all of Classical literature as a fake is sort of a Greek tragic fault: right idea imperfect in its execution. I think.

Taking your advice at heart and try to dig further for other archeological evidence, check further on reliability of carbon dating for specific finds.

The remnants of trees combined with ash information and Roman artifacts and foundation of Rome, I was also thinking about: but didn’t manage yet (on the net) to find a reference to the conclusive relation between those (if you can give a hint for more info: please share further).

This isn't addressed solely to me, but I'm not of much use for this. There are lots of other people here who certianly can be, and I appeal with you to them for some specific evidence to look at.

Intersting, maybe some subject for anyone else who wants to tackle/confirm Fomenko: check what he brings concerning Pompei with the other available evidence. I’m not that far yet.

And I'll certainly make an effort to look into this. It's summer, so I have more free time than I might at other points of the year.

About those original texts and authenticity, I won’t drag to long but to precise myself: I think they can be handled as authentic if they are composed the same amount of years back, as the the pretended author would have lived and if we are sure it’s an original peace of text stemming from the same period. Many copies go from hand to hand, but is there prove that once an original of them existed? And if so, does the orginal meet above specs?

Sort of. Most phililogical study starts with the assumption -- valid or not -- that the text is leigitmate. I'm not aware of any text that can be traced back with authority to the author, off hand. Many can be traced back to an individual copy or translation. And I can't think of any medium used by the Greeks or Romans that would last that long (well, marble, but that's not exactly suitable for an extended piece of writing).

A good bet, however, might be something like City of God by St Augustine; it was written at the end of the Classical period by someone of importance. I have a decentish copy -- I'll look into that.

For an example the Germania of Tacitus. Jaylemurph, I know I lack sometimes the references but here I try to give some indications of my thoughts.

In my opinion there are 2 ways to doubt the authenticity of the text:

- How/ where and when it has been discovered (Poggio Bracciolini boosted that he had discovered half of Latin literature, mainly in German monasteries (Sankt Gallen, Reichenau Hersfeld…) Before these founds I’m told historians had nothing heard of Tacitus. If true at least something to take note off. Below a link which is actually dismissing this thought of forgery. A work with much usefull information in the line of forgery (it's a roman, oh no this won't give any credibility :-) is Mysterium of Monaldi& Sorti. Don't worry, i know they wrote the roman to sell books, but did a lot of research which they use in the afterwords.

This doesn't sound right. Tacitus was known by his contemporaries (Pliny the Younger has a letter we still have written to him). He was also referred to in the 3rd Century by Tertullian; Ammianus cited him and started his own history where Tacitus left off. Cassiodorus and Jordanes both cite him as a reference, writing slightly later. In the early Middle Ages, he's referred to by Peter the Deacon and by less well known Frankish writers during and after Charlemagne's rule.

http://www.tertullia...pearse/tacitus/ The 're-naissance' (invention) of antiquity is studied in this way in whole different light. My issue is: how trustworthy are these discoveries/types like Bracciolini.

Part of what Jordanes cited in his Getica was from the Germania, so it's not a question of Bracciolini inventing the text, unless he also invented Jordanes; if he did, then he did an almost perfect impression of him. Tacitus' style is distinctive and there's no substantial difference to me in the style Germania and other writings (and it's very similar to the Agricola, with which it's often republished.)

--Jaylemurph

[Abramelin]

I found an interesting webpage about the works of Tacitus:

Tacitus and his manuscripts

Introduction

There are quite a number of misleading statements about this subject circulating on the internet, including the curious idea that Tacitus was forged in the 15th century by Poggio Bracciolini. This page has been written to place the facts at the disposal of those interested, and references to more information. The intended audience is the interested layman. All this material is derived from the sources listed.

I've also added a short paragraph on the allegations that Tacitus' works were forged.

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/tacitus/

[kmt_sesh]

All fair enough, it was a try to get a real grip on the much talked evidence that is abundant why Rome should be founded 2700 years back.

To pursuade myself.

Did not accomplish that yet. And have the feeling we all don't have any real evidence (and do not care for that) what backs this believe (only from authority of others, they certainly will have investigated it thouroughly).

Because that is what i just asked myself (Jaylemurph): non-circular and straight forward evidence (point to it: eg which document is dated that far back and can be linked to the founding, which founds where and when). Not just summing up some texts where things are mentionned that are equal questionable in datings, general classifications: papers, buildings, coins, ...

When there is a guy mentionning the whole Roman age in middleages, cross references and coins can be set apart and won't do to tackle: they move along to the middleages (apart from the many proven fakeries).

I think there is at least a point that we all are very easy going in believing old quakery that stands for ages, but very tendentious if that is being questionned.

That deliberate fraud on the gullible could have taken place much earlier. Let's laugh together :-)

Fomenko is not the first or the last to mention this, so laughing him away won't settle the case of the general assumption that ancient history are merely myths written down and copied by middleage monks and frauds.

What is ridiculous and fantastical is the sucking of Romulus and Remus by an animal, and there are more of such tales that go along with other statements of same authors that we do take seriously because we think those statements are not to be proven because they just are 'the reality' (repeated by the gullible).

The founding of Rome around 700 BCE belongs to the mytho-history of the Romans. This is not to say it's absolutely incorrect, but the Romans themselves incorporated it into their traditions (the date is actually around 750 BCE). Their own historians were doing their best to back-date their history to the founding age, and it works out in modern terms to be around 750 BCE. There is the fact that archaeological excavations in the oldest areas of Rome have found evidence for settlements dating to the eighth century BCE, but that's not the same as actually saying this was the founding of Rome.

But the fact is, the earliest history of the Romans is still shrouded in mystery, academically speaking. Archaeology and related fields search for empirical evidence, and turning to the myths is not usually a part of this quest. For that matter, Romulus and Remus are only one founding myth. Just as popular to the ancient Romans was Aeneas' escape from Troy and eventual arrival in Italy (ever read The Aeneid?).

There's little doubt kings ruled Rome in its earliest years, and the later Romans composed many tales about them, but almost nothing is tangibly known about these kings or their time, academically speaking. What is known is that Rome started to become a force to be reckoned with in the Hellenistic period. Think of Pyrrhus of Epirus and his personal unfortunate military engagements against the Romans in the early third century BCE (and hence our modern cliché "Pyrrhic victory").

What Fomenko and others like him are doing with their "New Chronology" is compressing incredible lengths of history into the blink of an eye. We would have to move up by many centuries not only Rome but the entire Hellenistic age, preceded by Classical Greece and its earlier periods stretching back to Mycenae. At the same time, then, we would have to compress the much more ancient ages of the eastern Mediterranean, including Egypt and Nubia and Mesopotamia and Persia, to name but several. Greece itself owed many of its advances and traditions to these much more ancient peoples.

In other words, Fomenko's entire premise is laughable and, frankly, not worthy of consideration. It is an amateurish (if not delusional) approach to ancient history. While it's true that some people fall sway to Fomenko and similar ilk, at the same time he has had no bearing on the world of academia and never will. His entire premise does not survive scrutiny. When weighed against the modern science employed by archaeology and related fields, Fomenko simply falls flat.

[Van Gorp]

What Fomenko and others like him are doing with their "New Chronology" is compressing incredible lengths of history into the blink of an eye. We would have to move up by many centuries not only Rome but the entire Hellenistic age, preceded by Classical Greece and its earlier periods stretching back to Mycenae. At the same time, then, we would have to compress the much more ancient ages of the eastern Mediterranean, including Egypt and Nubia and Mesopotamia and Persia, to name but several. Greece itself owed many of its advances and traditions to these much more ancient peoples.

Not totally so that he (and others) only compresses all of the so called ancient 'civilisations', but also seeing much of them parallel/duplicated/mythological descriptions of same events.

In a blink of an eye it was in the time of Scaliger that practical all the ancient events were placed in a stretched timeline, without backing of any 'modern' science.

What a genius that must have been, knowing things we are trying to proof now :-)

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

There are many stumblings blocks to New Chronology (Old snake oil). That nobody could read Hieroglyphs until early 19th century is but one of them. This ridiculous time compression has ended by 19th century, so how is the history of AE shoe-horned into this nonsense? How can these "devious" monks in middle ages, with no knowledge of AE history, alter history to include something totaly unknown to them?. It is easy to manipulate something that was known to them, for instance the history of Greece, Rome and most parts of the Levant except Egypt. But AE is a huge block that New Chronology simply canot deal with, except by ignoring it or evasions. It does not matter there is a (fake) dispute over age of Pyramids and Sphinx, for those arguments demolish New Chronology anyway. It does not matter there is dispute about the exact length of the reign of some kings, or that there may have been an overlap between the passing of one old king and the emergence of an heir. It does not matter that there may yet be discovered more gaps in the various lists of kings, though unlikely in the dynastic period IMO. For apart from some wanting to put age of Giza monuments back about 5 000 years, which goes against New Chronology, the disputes about reign length ony affect the overall chronology of AE by decades, and probably not more than a century or more, certainly not the millenia required by New Chronology. One of the flaws of New Chronology is that it primarily looks at battles and important people, it ignores culture, the growth of culture, it's spread. It ignores linguistics, it ignores archeology, it ignores the work done my countless reputable scholars over the centuries. And for what? so Fomenko can make a few $ from gullible fools. I am not against discussion, but here is far too much ignoring of reality and commonsense, of trashing an accept view simply for the sake of argument. Why should anybody here waste time when they know reality will never be accepted, and that NO proof of various mad ideas will EVER be given, only constant demands that reality must be proved. It would be an interesting day on this forum when somebody with a view so outrageous as Fomenko's starts a thread with a list of their beliefs and why they believe it, and backed up by some evidence that can be discussed. But I don't hold my breath about this happening soon.

Edited June 15, 2013 by Tutankhaten-pasheri

[Van Gorp]

I prefer not to talk in terms of fools but depending the standpoint one takes the question seems always to boil down to: 'What is the evidence for the opposite view'.

If we are honest: why do we mostly go along with classic views: not because we studied all that evidence, but beceasue we think it all has been studied that well before.

I take your point not to 'trust' Fomenko by his books. But only questionning classic view, seems enough to be labelled gullible.

Then what about Hardouin? You can't say he was out for the big bucks and that he was a layman in classic history.

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

Buying books that are obvious nonsense, except to study them to disect the nonsense, is foolish, it is like buying charms to keep "evil" away. As for Hardouin, well, he shows that even educated and intelligent people can be as foolish as anybody.

You say this

What is the evidence for the opposite view

I still wait, for saying you do not believe in accepted history, whether all or only parts, is simply a personal statement by you. I can say I believe the Moon is made of chocolate and is inhabited by pink elephants, anybody can say anything. But to try to demolish accepted history needs some proof, not simply belief. Don't just say history was fabricated by monks in middle ages, prove it, give reasons why they would do this, show what person or group has directed that this be done. Proof, please....

[Van Gorp]

Yes I understand the fact that kind of proof is needed when one should want to demolish the steady belief of most in classic history.

Totally right I guess.

Maybe it doesn’t seem like this, but to be clear: this is not my interest. Would feel sorry if I have to leave the forum for this :-)

I just want to share that while not believing classic history can be laughable for most, I find it a natural reflex and common sense not to do so.

Sorry again, please don’t ask for proof to me. If you would ask me: I couldn’t even give you proof the earth is round, except some nice pictures and stories I’m convinced to believe in :-)

But bit more back to detail: interesting point why.

Don’t pretend to know the full scale of Hardouin’s thoughts, but roughly the context he saw the scam in was that actual ‘atheists’ like Benedictin monks (later Calvinists and Lutherians) used the scripts to give their mission more ancient authority.

That's maybe for some other topic, interesting that Hardouin looks at those groups as atheists.

His Jesuit background can be involved, though later on he was boycotted even by his peers.

I think his belief is that a common true christianlike belief shared by the common people (without much authority involved) was highjacked and perverted in the late middleages by authorities using the writing monks in falsifications and faking much of the history for more credibility around the foundations of their authority.

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

Faking origins Christianity and all this nonsense about saints is something I will not dispute, but it was not done in late middle ages, it started from the very beginning and still continues. I have said on other parts of this forum that Christianity has a vacuum at it's heart as far as any god is concerned. This was seen by people back in those days, it is why emperor Justinian declared Christians to be atheists and re-opened the pagan temples. All that has followed from Justinian's death has been hiding the origins of the religion and subverting large elements of Roman paganism into Christianity to keep the masses happy. There, I have laid out a belief of mine that many here condemn and would say is as mad as anything from Fomenko. I have even been accused on this forum of being the Anti-Christ. So, if your real purpose is not to support Fomenko, but say that much of Christianity is fake, then I agree, though not about any timelines, the weight of evidence for things happening at a certain time and in a certain order is too great to ignore. I do not believe the accepted chronology of history can be challenged in any significant way, but why events happend, and how they can be interpreted is another matter. To say Christianity has fabricated it's own history is very contentious, but it is something that could be debated. To have Ceasar and Ghengis Khan living at the same time is simply not rational and cannot be debated, though I think you do not believe this anyway. It is only the religious aspect I think.......

[kmt_sesh]

Not totally so that he (and others) only compresses all of the so called ancient 'civilisations', but also seeing much of them parallel/duplicated/mythological descriptions of same events.

In a blink of an eye it was in the time of Scaliger that practical all the ancient events were placed in a stretched timeline, without backing of any 'modern' science.

What a genius that must have been, knowing things we are trying to proof now :-)

Yes, I'm familiar with "New Chronology's" approach to descriptions of same events. It certainly doesn't wash. Think of ancient warfare, specific examples of which happen to be some of the best-recorded episodes from history. For example, let's consider the following ancient military campaigns:

• Sumerian battle between Lagash and Umma (c. 2400 BCE)
  
• Ramesses II's campaign at Kadesh (c. 1274 BCE)
  
• Piye's conquest of Egypt (c. 733 BCE)
  
• Assyrian siege of Jerusalem (701 BCE)
  
• Greek victory over Persians at Marathon (490 BCE)
  
• Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta (431-404 BCE)
  
• Hannibal's victory over the Romans at Cannae (216 BCE)
  
• Constantine victory at the Milvian Bridge (312 CE)
  

I could go on, but here we have eight separate and distinct military campaigns or engagements spanning thousands of years. I selected these as examples because they're particularly well recorded in ancient contexts—in most cases by multiple sources.

It would be intellectual folly to think that thousands of years of such historical events are duplications of single events. It's divorced from any frame of reality.

[kmt_sesh]

It doesn't work that way.

Welcome to UM, cmontes1. Nice to have you here.

A word of advice, going forward. Please flesh out your posts with information relevant to the discussion. A cluster of emoticons doesn't say anything. For example, you wrote "It doesn't work that way." What, exactly, doesn't work that way?

Thanks.

[OhZone]

Yes, I'm familiar with "New Chronology's" approach to descriptions of same events. It certainly doesn't wash. Think of ancient warfare, specific examples of which happen to be some of the best-recorded episodes from history. For example, let's consider the following ancient military campaigns:

• Sumerian battle between Lagash and Umma (c. 2400 BCE)
  
• Ramesses II's campaign at Kadesh (c. 1274 BCE)
  
• Piye's conquest of Egypt (c. 733 BCE)
  
• Assyrian siege of Jerusalem (701 BCE)
  
• Greek victory over Persians at Marathon (490 BCE)
  
• Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta (431-404 BCE)
  
• Hannibal's victory over the Romans at Cannae (216 BCE)
  
• Constantine victory at the Milvian Bridge (312 CE)
  

I could go on, but here we have eight separate and distinct military campaigns or engagements spanning thousands of years. I selected these as examples because they're particularly well recorded in ancient contexts—in most cases by multiple sources.

It would be intellectual folly to think that thousands of years of such historical events are duplications of single events. It's divorced from any frame of reality.

And we should believe these dates why?

Same goes for the "Julian Calandar".

I think Fomenko does bring up a lot of valid points, as does Van Danken. Many dismiss him out of hand without any valid rebuttal. I'm not sure exactly why we should believe the "official" story of history when in our own time we have seen so many lies. History, like most of the pronouncements of perceived authorities, is just a political tool, to lead and mislead the masses.

One thing I do find spurious is his seemingly desperate attempt to validate Christianity and its patron Jesus as well as his attempts to show that the early bible stories correlate to later events.

[kmt_sesh]

And we should believe these dates why?

Same goes for the "Julian Calandar".

I think Fomenko does bring up a lot of valid points, as does Van Danken. Many dismiss him out of hand without any valid rebuttal. I'm not sure exactly why we should believe the "official" story of history when in our own time we have seen so many lies. History, like most of the pronouncements of perceived authorities, is just a political tool, to lead and mislead the masses.

One thing I do find spurious is his seemingly desperate attempt to validate Christianity and its patron Jesus as well as his attempts to show that the early bible stories correlate to later events.

My above post has nothing to do with Jesus Christ or the Bible. I can only imagine you're talking about the dating system overall. Note that I do not use BC or AD, which are in fact biased toward Judeo-Christianity. I conform to the more modern BCE (Before the Common Era) and CE (Common Era). This dating system is not tied to any religion and simply marks the year 0 as a base point. It is the most accurate and reliable dating system in existence for historical studies. That said, your remark about Christianity does not seem relevant.

Aside from that, why trust orthodox scholarship and not Fomenko? That's pretty easy to answer. Orthodox scholarship is based on more than two centuries of ongoing, concerted, and corroborative analyses of extent evidence. The examples in the list from that old post of mine, as it says in that post, are all well-recorded historical events, and in some cases are recorded in more than one ancient source. In the world of professional research, including many decades of field work, archaeology, and lab work, nothing has occurred to upset the existing historical timeline to any significant degree.

The New Chronology, on the other hand, is clearly a mix of twisting much historical evidence and ignoring much more of it. This is not how research is conducted. There is a reason this or that "new chronology" of any given alternative "historian" has never survived scrutiny and has had no effect on orthodox scholarship.

I don't necessarily dismiss folks like Fomenko out of hand. I base my position on twenty-five years of research of societies of the ancient Near East. So based on my own research and experience, folks like Fomenko simply do not measure up.

Von Däniken I do dismiss out of hand, however. Most people do. The man is a convicted criminal (he served time in Europe for fraud) and has been caught red handed falsifying evidence for his alien themes (again, fraud). There is absolutely no reason to take him seriously. He is not an historian, nor is he a researcher. He's a fiction-entertainment writer of bad sci-fi.

Please understand that it will never be sufficient just to dismiss orthodox scholarship. Its pursuits are based on rigid research protocols subjected to peer-review. In order to challenge orthodox scholarship, one must adopt the same protocols and prove with corroborative evidence that accepted theories are incorrect. This has never happened.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

How does history outside Europe fit in this theory ?

Is the history of the Americas, China, India, Japan and South-east Asia faked to, because they are quite well documented today.

Did the jesuits fake that too ?

[OhZone]

Yes, my comments were directed at the dating system in general.

That year “0” is predicated on the year Jesus was supposed to be born isn’t it? Therefore it is tied to religion. CE/AD etc is neither here nor there; we both understand the meaning don’t we?

What records or the ancient dates recorded and what did they use as a “date”?

Has anyone refuted Formenko’s astrological dates?

Established scientific thought is overturned frequently. See this site for a list of vindicated mavericks: http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html

When the Wright brothers first demonstrated their aircraft it was declared a hoax. Western Union said the telephone wasn't practical and they "had no use for it"

Alfred Wegener was an outcast for his ideas of continental drift. etc.,etc.

Von Daniken's fakery destroyed confidence in the ideas in his original work; which was not the first and won't be the last of the sort.

The Jesuits are ensconced all over the world, in every country and in every culture; possibly minus the most primitive.

Edited January 12, 2014 by OhZone

[Gingitsune]

There is no year 0, they didn't used the 0 back then, it's year 1. One year is year -1 and the next is year 1. That's also why in 2014 we are in the 21st century, there is no century 0. And why we changed millenium on January 1st 2001 and not 2000.

So year 1 should have been the year Jesus was born, but the calculus was made a few centuries after the fact, so who knows if it's accurate or not.

If you would ask me: I couldn’t even give you proof the earth is round, except some nice pictures and stories I’m convinced to believe in :-)

Go to a sea port. Look at the boats coming and going. You'll notice they "rise" and "set" like the sun, as if there were going over a hill of water, instead of skrinking to nothingness. But you interact daily with water and you know there can be no such a thing. The only answer is the earth is round and the boats are gradually hidden, bottom to top, as the distance between you and them gain degrees. It work also on decent size lake, where you can see the trees, hills and houses on the oposite shore, but no the shore itself, which is hidden by a hill of water. Also, that's why you can't see what's on the other side of the sea with a telescope even though you can see stuff much farther away up in the sky.

More on topic, even if carbon dating can be tricky at times, medieval artifacts always score as more "recent" than antic atifacts. So even if every event's dates are not always totally accurate, the order of the eras relative to one another makes no doubt. Plus, dendochronology have progressed a lot over the years, they now have databases over different species of trees over the years going millenia back, it's easy to pinpoint the right year if they have some wood among the artefact.

[Van Gorp]

Go to a sea port. Look at the boats coming and going. You'll notice they "rise" and "set" like the sun, as if there were going over a hill of water, instead of skrinking to nothingness.

Exactly my point, I never have done that (going to the sea to see ships disappear), so I officially I can't even prove to myself the word is round.

How sad a bloke can be :-) I must rely on the accounts of an internet lady. But I am a good believer, so I'll believe you. You seem to be talking by experience.

Now, some other blokes should talk to you further about that. I just found this, not my quote but the dude seems evenly convinced of his case.

"

If the world is so obviously a sphere then why do people still think it's flat? Why don't you people research the Flat Earth Theory for yourselves and you will see it's not crazy or unrealistic. Everyone knew the world was flat for 1000's of years across the world including The Hebrews, The Egyptians, The Chinese, The Muslims, The Native Americans and others.

"Free Thinkers" that challenged the scriptures were fooled by such simple tricks of perception. They say "The moon is round and so is the sun" and then they see Ships "appear" to disappear over the horizon and assume the world is a sphere.

Well friends, If the world is a 25,000 mile circumference sphere then you are standing on top of a ball and the ground should curve downwards 1 mile over a 90 mile distance in all directions. People think the world is so big that you can't see the curvature, but the ground should curve 8 inches in only the first mile, 32 inches in the second mile and 6 feet in the 3rd mile.

We should be able to see this curvature if the world is indeed a sphere. Test the claims for yourself and you will see that the ground does not curve at all. In fact, You can see the FULL Toronto skyline from New York over Lake Ontario with a telescope which is 30+ miles across. There should be at least a 150+ foot tall bulge of water blocking part of the view and it does not. The ground should be curved downwards 600 feet but it does not. The skyline is flat, the horizon is flat and Lake Ontario is amazingly flat.

The reason things appear to disappear on the horizon is because of mirages. The moisture in the air and also heat blocks light rays from reaching you when the objects reach the vanishing point of your vision. The ship's full view can be restored with a simple telescope or binoculars.

PWNED"

But we were talking about another nut ...

[Kaa-Tzik]

Fomenko belongs to a different phenomena than Daniken etc who are simply charlatans who want your money, or are egoists who want followers. To understand Fomenko, who is actually a genuine academician with bona fide qualifications in mathematics at Moscow State University, it is necessary to understand the education system in Soviet Union, and what was taught and what was left out as regards history, and this is not simply a matter of pushing Vikings into the background. It is then necessary to understand that when Soviet Union collapsed it was not just the economic situation that became chaotic, it was also in academia. Otherwise rational people, and I include Fomenko, for though he is wrong, he is not some ignorant fool, now with freedom they did not have before to express private ideas in public, lurched to far in the direction of anything is possible, anything believable. An analogy is with morality collapsing, among some, during the same period, and why, when Russia got online in the 90s, it was "ugly". This was not a surprise and is actually a natural occurence after being "buttoned up" for decades. Fomenko and others are the academic expression of this loosening of control. The phenomena of Fomenko and such in Russia comes under the name "Folk history". But this is not quite the same as historians in other countries studying old customs etc, it goes to who "the people" are and where they come from, but not in a proper historical and archeological manner, it is in an emotional and even quasi religious manner. The people who deal with this are for the most not actively charlatans as they actually believe what they are saying. Some have branched out into new ageism and we see the same nonsense, the same "self help" and "self/cosmic awareness" books that infest the rest of the world. Though if people want or need this nonsense that is their affair. There is no scientific or historical method to Fomenko's New Chronology, he simply wants something to be true, so he makes it true in his books. He makes a living from these many books, but whether he believes his nonsense or is a deliberate fraud I do not know. In the west he is seen by skeptics as an outright fraud, for how can anybody possibly believe in such obvious nonsense. Yet while it is nonsense, the "culture" behind this phenomena is not so well known in the West, and certainly not a subject of common knowledge. This subject is rather "esoteric" and unfortunately a subject not addressed by any English authors I can find, so I cannot give any English links to back up what I say. Some may wish to struggle with google translator with this article that addresses the phenomena of "Folk History", Fomenko and others. http://scepsis.net/library/id_148.html

Edited February 11, 2014 by Kaa-Tzik

[Van Gorp]

... to the sea to see ...

Because we all get poetical once in a while, little sidenote for the ones understanding Dietsch among us:

Sea = Zieje

See = Zieje

Ziejen = Trekken (Attract), Spannen

Eyes wide open, wijd gespannen!

[NO-ID-EA]

If we are into mad theories here ,flat earth , all history in a span of 1000 years , sun and the planets revolve around earth etc ......another interesting thing to contemplate are a couple of books by Neale Donald Walsche , In which he talks about conversations he has with God , in reply to questions that he (RDW) has put to him(God) about how the world works.

God tells him we are all a part of God , we are just a spark inside a body , that thinks it is a whole being , and that each one of us is really a part of the creator , and (in his image) actually is a creator in it's own right ......The interesting thought part.......as a collective mind , ie: not individually , but when a large percentage of us believes something is so , God makes it so......SO.....at the time most men thought the Sun revolved around the Earth it did , until a majority of us believed the earth revolves around the sun.. now it does.......Sounds Daft , i know.

Contemplate.......in medieval times from what you read people believed in witches , merlin , magic, and in the myths you read magic worked , people could shrivel and die if a witch put a curse on them ,or a harvest could fail , and in other parts witchdoctors would be in full employment , along with rain dancers , and shamen.etc.......enough people believed it worked ....so it was collectively created , and it became so , it worked.........................but then People lost their belief in magic , if a gypsy were to put a curse on someone today , there are not many people who would believe in it..........the collective don't believe in it , so magic is no longer so. and no longer works .

Similarly...Maybe....... at some stage there is no group called the illuminatti, someone wants to create such a group , but no one knows who they are , they have no power .an elite group puts it about on the internet that a group called the illuminatti are intent on running the world , they are very powerful and rich and secret..... keep it going for a while , and introduce a contra group of individuals with a conspiracy theory, they confirm the illiteratti are real , and they need to get it out to the public ,the collective starts to hear about it, more and more people start to believe in this group called the illuminatti , but they have never actually done anything...........until enough of the collective sheep have heard of these powerful illuminatti .. and there is no smoke without fire now is there ?.... and a powerbase is created out of nothing ........and just like magic if we believe it exists , we give it the power of fear to exist , and it is so...........

Just thought it was an interesting idea to think about.......maybe if enough of us read, and start to believe Fomenko...History will be SO

Edited February 11, 2014 by NO-ID-EA

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

How does this compressed history business tally with the oral history of Indigenous Australians (who have kept their history rather then let it slip into legend and then myth) some of whom have a historical record of watching the waters rise after the ice age ended and being able to tell you how many life times ago that was.

And China. Meticulous record keepers. They've a history that goes back longer then Formeko would have us believe.

Now, I can conceive of history being shorter then we think. I can conceive of it being longer then we think, I can conceive of how events in one place could be transported to another an assimilated into the culture.

But we have records that cast doubt on this argument.

[kmt_sesh]

How does this compressed history business tally with the oral history of Indigenous Australians (who have kept their history rather then let it slip into legend and then myth) some of whom have a historical record of watching the waters rise after the ice age ended and being able to tell you how many life times ago that was.

And China. Meticulous record keepers. They've a history that goes back longer then Formeko would have us believe

Such books are tailored toward the gullible or uninformed, or perhaps a mixture of both. Anyone with a sound background in historical studies will know such books for the nonsense they are. Compressing many centuries of history into a microsecond is not a useful approach to historical research, nor does it survive even cursory scrutiny.

Kaa-Tzik said something in his recent post that I've long wondered about folks such as Fomenko (Sitchin, von Däniken, et cetera): whether they honestly believe the half-baked nonsense they peddle or if they're actually in it only for the money. Now that's a real mystery.

Now, I can conceive of history being shorter then we think. I can conceive of it being longer then we think, I can conceive of how events in one place could be transported to another an assimilated into the culture.

But we have records that cast doubt on this argument.

Actually carbon dating in recent years in Egypt shows us how accurate conventional historical research is for later eras, and how it might be off with earlier eras. Dates long provided for New Kingdom peoples and events are usually no more than fifty years off, but for the Old Kingdom we could be as far off as a century: the Great Pyramid and contemporary monuments might have been built not in 2500 BCE but 2600 BCE.

More is the case that continued archaeology and research are pushing back our understanding of early man. Anatolian sites such as Catalhoyuk and Gobekli Tepe have revealed how sophisticated people could be in Neolithic times, more so than was understood prior to their discoveries. But this is real-world research conducted by extensively educated and highly intelligent professional men and women—not by cranks pecking out pseudo-histories straight from their vivid imaginations.

[Van Gorp]

Such books are tailored toward the gullible or uninformed, or perhaps a mixture of both. Anyone with a sound background in historical studies will know such books for the nonsense they are. Compressing many centuries of history into a microsecond is not a useful approach to historical research, nor does it survive even cursory scrutiny.

Kaa-Tzik said something in his recent post that I've long wondered about folks such as Fomenko (Sitchin, von Däniken, et cetera): whether they honestly believe the half-baked nonsense they peddle or if they're actually in it only for the money. Now that's a real mystery.

Actually carbon dating in recent years in Egypt shows us how accurate conventional historical research is for later eras, and how it might be off with earlier eras. Dates long provided for New Kingdom peoples and events are usually no more than fifty years off, but for the Old Kingdom we could be as far off as a century: the Great Pyramid and contemporary monuments might have been built not in 2500 BCE but 2600 BCE.

More is the case that continued archaeology and research are pushing back our understanding of early man. Anatolian sites such as Catalhoyuk and Gobekli Tepe have revealed how sophisticated people could be in Neolithic times, more so than was understood prior to their discoveries. But this is real-world research conducted by extensively educated and highly intelligent professional men and women—not by cranks pecking out pseudo-histories straight from their vivid imaginations.

Come on Kesh, do we really need to the words nonsense, gullible, cranks, ...

You don't need that.

That is just not true. Very well educated people (Monaldi&Sorti) think likewise. They are no misfits, very well educated, not gullible. Investigate it theirselves.

Now you gonna tell they only want to sell books.

Do you really think these educated people (not less than you) like to be called names and their reputation being attacked only for the money?

I don't.

Maybe you can't grasp the reality of it, find it nonsense, fine but I don't see the need to call names to everyone who just wants to investigate this further.

There is a reality that much dating is a circular event, fest of linking accepted assumptions and not much is needed to get it all fall like a house of carts.

What is recorded history, the foundation of Rome?