Anatoly Fomenko?

[NO-ID-EA]

I can, as a skeptic, fully understand where you are coming from in what you say and agree with you. Sadly the shutters come down here very firmly on views that do not correspond to within a few nanometres of what is expected by a very small clique who think they have a monopoly of knowledge and truth. There is no debate, only brow beating. I would debate some of Fomenko's points, but it is clearly futile, a pity.....

Well lets just go for it Kaa-Tzik and VG and see what happens , if it gets abusive , we can just walk away , and have a giggle about their being a discussion forum , called alternative history on UM

[Van Gorp]

Ok, here is a try for some conrete point.

Don't shoot the messanger, I just try to formulate one of Fomenko's statements in concreto, without knowing from hart what extra arguments do back his thesis.

I need to look up step by step in some of his works that are available to me.

I know it can be interpreted as nationalistic clipclap, but let us assume that has nothing to do with it.

About the Mongols, Fomenko states:

"We suggest a different approach to Russian History: It suffaces to translate the word "Mongol" as "the great" (my note: Fomenko stated before the mongols were just the leaders of hordes constituted of soldiers from Russian ground), that instanly eliminates all absurdities, leaving us with quotidian realities of a normal state (and a great one, at that).

The hypothesis about Mongols originating from the borderlands of the faraway China appears to be a rather late one. The medieval Hungarian author of the miniature one sees in fig 3.1, for instance, draws the "Mongols" that lead captives to the horde as Slavic characters dressed in Russian clothes, whereas their captives look distinctly European. The Mongolian conquerors have only been drawn in the Cinese fashion since the introduction of the theory about "Mongol and Tartar Yoke (qv in the XVIII century drawing shown in fig 3.2)."

[Van Gorp]

It's sad that this just occurred to me, but it seems at least a couple of posters in this debate have in fact read Fomenko's work on the subject. I've already stated that I haven't read his stuff and explained why it's not necessary in order to present a successful refutation. But even so, it might be useful for posters who've done the reading to mention specific examples from Fomenko's material.

For instance, there are the coincidences in certain historical names. Those instances of historical people might be a good start. Could someone list some examples of these? We could take the analysis from there.

Interesting idd to analyse, check or refute if you will.

Maybe Djenghis Kahn is a nice one.

Extra Statement below by

A.T.Fomenko , G.V.Nosowsky

We will reiterate some elements of our reconstruction. At the end of the XIII – beginning of the XIV cc. a final unification of the diverse peoples of Russia, instigated by Aeneas-Ryurik, took place. Partly peacefully, partly through military means, the people of Povolzhye (Volga Region) and Severnoye Prichernomorye (The Northern Black Sea Area) merged into a centralized state under the military = Hordian rule. It was fully realised under the Grand prince – khan, Khagan ( Kagan, Chagan) Georgii Danilovich, aka Genghis Khan or Gurkhan in the foreign sources. A vast and powerful state falls under his power.

[questionmark]

Interesting idd to analyse, check or refute if you will.

Maybe Djenghis Kahn is a nice one.

Extra Statement below by

A.T.Fomenko , G.V.Nosowsky

We will reiterate some elements of our reconstruction. At the end of the XIII – beginning of the XIV cc. a final unification of the diverse peoples of Russia, instigated by Aeneas-Ryurik, took place. Partly peacefully, partly through military means, the people of Povolzhye (Volga Region) and Severnoye Prichernomorye (The Northern Black Sea Area) merged into a centralized state under the military = Hordian rule. It was fully realised under the Grand prince – khan, Khagan ( Kagan, Chagan) Georgii Danilovich, aka Genghis Khan or Gurkhan in the foreign sources. A vast and powerful state falls under his power.

and so on, and so on... no wonder I decided to not give those books to Oxfam (what I usually do with books I don't see any merit in keeping).

[Harte]

On the sea people , Really , i thought even now it is debatable amongst historians exactly who the sea people were .

A brief and shallow investigative perspective of who the Sea People were, performed by non-historians such as you and I, might well result in the erroneous belief you here express.

A moment's thought, however, will reveal to interested parties the facts.

Simply because we can't be absolutely certain of the cultural identities of every group in the confederation we call the "Sea People," this in no way indicates that the Egyptians didn't know who they were.

From Rameses III Mortuary Temple at Medinet Habu, translation by Breasted, 2001:

The countries -- --, the [Northerners] in their isles were disturbed, taken away in the [fray] -- at one time. Not one stood before their hands, from Kheta, Kode, Carchemish, Arvad, Alashia, they were wasted. {The}y {[set up]} a camp in one place in Amor. They desolated his people and his land like that which is not. They came with fire prepared before them, forward to Egypt. Their main support was Peleset, Tjekker, Shekelesh, Denyen, and Weshesh. (These) lands were united, and they laid their hands upon the land as far as the Circle of the Earth. Their hearts were confident, full of their plans.

One source of many.

The only debate today involves exactly who the Egyptians were referring to by these names, and not whether the Egyptians knew them, which they obviously did.

Now, it is certainly known (in many cases) or assumed (in several other cases) that the Egyptians exaggerated their prowess on the battlefield and in other arenas. How is it, then, that we are aware of the Egyptian proclivity for self-aggrandizement? Because we can correlate what the Egyptians claim with statements from other involved parties (such as Persia, for example) concerning the same events.

This stupid idea of a condensed chronology would have us pretend that we simply don't have this information, while we certainly do have it.

Nonsense.

The same is said in the same journals you take as scientific.

But probably you just leave out those articles (or haven't read any because your mind is too preoccupied) as the ones using carbon dating as their cherry picking tree.

I see.

Here is your claim:

The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged.... It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half comes out to be accepted. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates.

Please provide evidence that C14 dating is "undeniably" flawed. Please show us where this dating method has been "strongly challenged."

If these "strong challenges" actually exist, and if the flaws are "undeniable," this should be quite easy for you. Yet I note that, despite my contradicting your claim, you elected not to support what you said, rather you simply accuse me of reading scientific journals, as if that was some kind of strike against me.

So, by all means, please support this claim you made. If you can't, then, well, it's obvious, isn't it?

Harte

[Ryinrea]

I am agreeing that dating is very hard, but to say ancient history all happened in the time frame of the Middle Ages is ludicrous. The Sea Peoples identity among academics have been debated on for a long time that is the truth of the matter. However, we do know for a fact they were employed by Rome as a clean up crew of shorts.

Edited February 15, 2014 by Ryinrea

[NO-ID-EA]

Fomenko...Book 2.

Identification of the 2nd and 3rd Roman Empires , as being the same history ( a chronological shift of circ. 330 years.)

1st Roman Empire , the ancient kingdom as founded by Romulus and Remus , said to have been 753 BC, ended with reign of Roman King Tarquin the Proud circ.509 BC (244 ish years )

Subjects of possible shift:-

2nd Roman Empire founded by Lucius Sulla , 83/82 BC , ended with Caracalla 217 AD.........................(circ . 299 years duration )

3rd Roman Empire restored by Lucius Aurelian , 270 AD , ended with King Theodoric , year 526 AD...(circ....256 years duration )

2nd E......Lucius Sulla..............82BC to 78 BC...... (6 years ) called Restitutor Urbis.

3rd E.......Lucius Aurelian.........270 AD to 275 AD..( 5 years) called Restitutor Orbis.

2nd E......[ following the first reigns of both 2nd and third empires

3rd E.......[ there were disputes /strife for 1 year

2nd E.......Marius Quintus Sertorius..........78 BC to 72 BC........(6 years reign )

3rd E........Marcus Aurelius Probus..........276 AD to 282 AD.......(6 years reign )

2nd E.......[ 72 BC to 71 BC following these reigns again there was strife

3rd E........[ 282 AD to 284 AD in both empires for 2 years .

2nd E.......Gnaeus Pompey the great .........................................................70 BC to 49 BC........( reign 21 years )

3rd E........Diocletian the Divine ( Caius Aurelius Valerius Diocletian ).......284 AD to 305 AD......( reign 21 years )

Note :- during the above reign of Pompey , he ruled for 10 years and then in 60 BC was joined in 1st Triumvir by Julius Caesar (60 BC to 49 BC )...(11 years )

during reign of Diocletian , after 9 years , a Tetrarchy was formed with Constantius 1 Chlorus....293 AD to 305 AD .........(12 years )

2nd E......during the next 4 years dispute and strife followed.........49 BC to 45 BC.

3rd E......." " " " " " ".........305 AD to 309 AD

2nd E.......Julius Caesar conquers the 1st Triumvirate 45/44 BC

3rd E........Constantius 1 Chlorus ( Caius Flavius Valerius Constantine Augustus )..... conquers 1st Tetrarchy .......305/6 AD

2nd E................. Triumvirate 17 years 44 BC to 27 BC

3rd E..................Tetrarchy for 18 years......306 AD to 324AD

Possible missing circ 40 years difference between 299 years of 2nd empire , and 256 years of 3rd empire may occur around here????????

2nd E........Augustus........(Caius Julius Octavian Augustus ) .......................conquers 2nd Triumvirate.............27 BC to 14 AD............(41 years )

3rd E.........Constantine 1(Caius Flavius Valerius Constantine Augustus )....conquers 2nd Tetrarchy ... rules till 337 AD...

2nd E........During the 2nd empire Jesus Christ is born around 27 th year of Octavian Augustas reign.

3rd E.........During the 3rd empire Saint Basil the Great is born somewhere around the 27th year of Constantines reign (born 329/330 AD )

Saint Basil the great grows to become the Bishop of Caesarea Mazaca in Cappadocia , strongly opposes many of the heresys of his century that are ranged

against his Niceen Creed ....fough Arianism and the followers of Appolinaris of Laodicia.

Became friends with Gregory of Nazianzus , and Gregory of Nyssa, they are considered the Cappadocian fathers of the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox churches

He was born in Pontus... both Basil and Gregory Naziazus studied in Constantinople for 6 years , and then went to Athens , where they met a fellow student called Julian...who was later to become Emperor Julian the Appostate.....by 358 AD Basil had gathered a band of followers around him, among them was his brother Peter.

Edited February 15, 2014 by NO-ID-EA

[Van Gorp]

A brief and shallow investigative perspective of who the Sea People were, performed by non-historians such as you and I, might well result in the erroneous belief you here express.

A moment's thought, however, will reveal to interested parties the facts.

Simply because we can't be absolutely certain of the cultural identities of every group in the confederation we call the "Sea People," this in no way indicates that the Egyptians didn't know who they were.

From Rameses III Mortuary Temple at Medinet Habu, translation by Breasted, 2001:

One source of many.

The only debate today involves exactly who the Egyptians were referring to by these names, and not whether the Egyptians knew them, which they obviously did.

Now, it is certainly known (in many cases) or assumed (in several other cases) that the Egyptians exaggerated their prowess on the battlefield and in other arenas. How is it, then, that we are aware of the Egyptian proclivity for self-aggrandizement? Because we can correlate what the Egyptians claim with statements from other involved parties (such as Persia, for example) concerning the same events.

This stupid idea of a condensed chronology would have us pretend that we simply don't have this information, while we certainly do have it.

I see.

Here is your claim:

Please provide evidence that C14 dating is "undeniably" flawed. Please show us where this dating method has been "strongly challenged."

If these "strong challenges" actually exist, and if the flaws are "undeniable," this should be quite easy for you. Yet I note that, despite my contradicting your claim, you elected not to support what you said, rather you simply accuse me of reading scientific journals, as if that was some kind of strike against me.

So, by all means, please support this claim you made. If you can't, then, well, it's obvious, isn't it?

Harte

Yes I can, the willingness is less :-)

You can search also I guess if you are truely interested.

http://www.essortment.com/carbon-dating-accuracy-flaws-carbon-dating-37183.html

http://www.detectingdesign.com/carbon14.html

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

The shells of living mollusks have been dated using the carbon 14 method, only to find that the method gave it a date as having been dead for 23,000 years!(Science vol. 141 1963 pg. 634-637)

Have fun.

[questionmark]

The shells of living mollusks have been dated using the carbon 14 method, only to find that the method gave it a date as having been dead for 23,000 years!(Science vol. 141 1963 pg. 634-637)

Have fun.

And another dating by somebody who knew about as much of biology as I do of the profession of the pope.

Mollusks, unlike plants and animals, get the carbon for their shells from ancient carbonate (mostly calcium carbonate) and not the atmosphere, because the main component of the shell is precisely this ancient CaCO₃. Ancient carbon is already depleted in C-14. Therefore mollusk shells are inappropriate for carbon dating because they do not, even when alive, have C-14 at the level present in the atmosphere.

That has nothing to do with carbon dating, that has something to do with idiots who, while claiming to be the most knowledgeable, were evidently sick in high school when shell formation of mollusks was taught.

[Harte]

From the second link:

What if these huge coal and oil beds, not to mention the huge quantities of calcium carbonate, were buried rapidly in some catastrophic calamity? Wouldn't this mean that all of this organic material was all living at or near the same time and that the carbon used to make this organic material was also part of the living biosphere at about the same time? If true, the amount of carbon 12 in and available to the biosphere was significantly greater in the past than it is today. In fact, without even considering the carbon in the vast quantities of calcium carbonate, there is enough carbon 12 buried in the fossil coal, oil, and other fossils to reduce the apparent ratio of ¹⁴C to ¹²C by about 7 half-lives.

Seems an agenda is afoot here, with oil and coal beds being buried in a single event.

How does a "what if" scenario apply here? That is, saying "what if" is meaningless. I could as easily say "what if the world was created 200 years ago, and all the memories and histories created along with it?" This would also invalidate C14 dating, wouldn't it?

The fact that the author has the title "M.D." after his name makes him expert enough to pontificate on the effect that Noah's flood would have on C14 dating?

Yes, C14 cannot provide dates with absolute certainty. As pointed out, it cannot be used to date, for example, mollusks. Nor can it date objects that have been immersed in still waters in caves (for the same reasons.)

However, C14 dates come with a fairly wide range, a fact usually ignored by its detractors. These ranges not only reflect the varying ages given by samples from the same materials, but also known variations in atmospheric carbon in past ages.

Do we know all these variations? Of course not. However, this does not affect in any real way the reliability of C14 date ranges provided. It certainly doesn't affect any of the dates so far provided by the Fomenko advocates. These dates are too recent for Noah.

The third link?

Carbon dating is a good dating tool for some things that we know the relative date of. Something that is 300 years old for example. But it is far from an exact Science. It is somewhat accurate back to a few thousand years, but carbon dating is not accurate past this. Thirty thousand years is about the limit. However, this does not mean that the earth is 30 thousand years old. It is much younger than that.

Sorry, but that crap is not even worth addressing.

So, it's pretty much what I thought - the only "serious challenges" to C14 dating are Creationist.

Let us now examine these detractors and their "serious challenges" (I have no doubt that they are serious, but not so their challenges.)

How about the "serious challenges" facing the "science" of Creationism? No reason to consider these, I suppose?

Harte

[NO-ID-EA]

Continued from post #132.

2nd Empire....Lucius Sulla's official title of Restitutor Urbis .. means Restorer of the City

3rd Empire.....Lucius Aurelius official title Restitutor Orbis.....means Restorer of the world....or the state.

2nd E.....Sulla became Emperor as a result of a Civil war.. being the best military leader he was elected by his troops.....the senate later confirmed his appointment as dictator.

3rd E....Aurelian seized power as a result of war against the Goths , The troops proclaim him Emperor, the senate later endorse him under duress.

2nd E... After Sulla dies the civil war flares up again , as a series of battles in which Pompey takes leadership , .........2 brilliant military leaders come forward ...Junius Brutus and Marcus Aemilius Lepidus.......the troops of both these potential leaders have their armies defeated by Pompey

3rd E...After the death of Aurelian the war breaks out again , and territory is again lost, Tacitus who should have replaced Aurelian is murdered in a plot for power.....two more men gain prominence , Florian and Probus, the troops of Florian are defeated .

2nd E.....Marius Quintus Sertorius , is raised leader by the troops , and comes to power , his rein comes to an end when he is murdered in a plot.

3rd E......After Probus has become emperor , the troops riot , during which Probus is murdered.

2nd E...after the death of Sertorius , is the uprising of Spartacus , over 2 years of war , 2 more military leaders emerge craving power ....Pompey and Crassus.

3rd E......The death of Probus leads to more civil unrest, two military leaders become prominant Aurelius Corinus and Numerian.

2nd E......Power passes into the hands of Pompey , he enjoys some military triumphs , and becomes honoured Consul,time know as Pompeys Principate

3rd E......after 284 Diocletion is declared Emperor , his era is called " Epoch of the Dominate"

2nd E....Gnaeus Pompey Magnus becomes the organizer of the 1st Triumvirate.Pompey brings in large scale reforms of both the court , and the military , he is declared divine in his own lifetime .

3rd E.....Diocletian the Divine is founder of the 1st Tetrarchy...he instigates several democratic reforms , to both courtly and military bodies , and is the author of monetary reform , Diocletian is also deified in his lifetime

2nd E...Part of Pompeys reign became a triumvirate , with a: Pompey b: Crassus and c: Julius Caesar , in an effort to strengthen his power base , Pompey first signed a pact with Crassus , they later enlisted Julius Caesar.

3rd E.....part of Diocletians reign became a Tetrarchy , with a: Diocletian b:Constantius Chlorus c: Maximius, another contender was Galerius who dropped away. Diocletian first enlisted Maximius , and the two later adopted Constantius

note :- in both cases the one enlisted last becomes eventual leader.

2nd E....In year 49 BC the Roman senate strips Pompey of all powers, and Pompey steps down ,

3rd E.....in 305 AD Diocletian abdicates power ,

.

Edited February 15, 2014 by NO-ID-EA

[NO-ID-EA]

Continued from post #136

2nd E......Julius Caesar comes to power after a power struggle .... Plutarch calls him King

3rd E......Constantius seizes power during strife , the struggle leaves his friends dead, but he was honored with the title of Augustus.

2nd E.....Caesar elevates his 19 year old adopted son Octavian , who himself becomes a famous Augustus , ranking among the demi-gods.

3rd E.......Constantius enthrones his 20 year old son Constantine , who becomes a famous Augustus ,declared a saint , and demi God

2nd E......After the death of Julius Caesar the young Octavian is supported by his fathers troops and he seizes power, he was idolized by his troops.

3rd E.......After the death of Constantius (in 306 ?) Constantine is appointed his successor by the troops of the West, who gave him the title Caesar.

2nd E......The 2nd Triumvirate was created , when appointed Anthonius was a close friend of Octavian , but in the fight for supremacy he came to despise him, but was forced to negotiate and make peace , from the power and strength of Octavians troops.

3rd E.....2nd Tetrarchy formed with Galerius...Who was originally a Companion-at-arms with Constantine, but after falling out they became enemies , Galerius was forced into a minor role , because of Constantines popularity with both the Gallic Aristocracy , and Gallic troops

2nd E......The 2nd Triumvirate ended in a Sea battle at Actium when Octavians fleet defeated that of Anthony and Cleopatra , and he became Absolute Sole Ruler , and one of the most illustrious emperors of the Roman Empire , he Caius had now defeated all his enemies .

3rd E......the end of the 2nd tetrarchy came for Constantine in a sea battle in 324 AD when he crushed the fleet of his enemy Licinius at Adrianopolis, and became sole ruler of the Empire, he Caius had now defeated all his enemies.

( Fomenko mentions here for some reason , that he thinks the name Gaul , included both France and Galicia..)

2nd E......Octavian was Canonized , he embraced all power in his hands , military , religious , and civil , his legislative activities were popular , he made new laws , and the former Roman Codices were re-written.

3rd E.....Constantine was pronounced " Son of the God of the Sun " and declared divine , the christian church recognized him as a saint equal in rank to the apostles, he instigated a new period of the Roman Empire , sometimes called " The Holy Period "....he held all military , civil and religious power , his religious involvement is famous , but he also published new laws , and restored the roman codices to the pre- Diocletion period .

2nd E....Originally Octavian had no permanent residence ,but after a year he settled in Rome and re-built it into a new city , Rome is said to have come to it's peak of paramount importance in the time of Caius Octavian Augustus it was re-built in marble and stone , rather than the wood and brick of the former city..

3rd E.......in his 1st year of rule Constantine had no home in either Rome or New Rome on the Bosphorus , new Rome was the official name of his new Capital , which only received it's name of Constantinople some time later. Of the Rome of the Bosphorus , it was said that it's seven hills made it look every part like the seven hills of Rome.........Fomenko comments..Which one was Rome , and which one was new Rome ??he believes it was the Italian Rome that was re-built in the X111 - XV century AD in the image of Czar-Grad on the Bosphorus , not the other way around .

2nd E.....Augustus reigned either for 37 or 41 years , as it is not clear whether he took absolute power in 23 AD or 27 AD, 4 years of which we are unsure , 4 years of which jesus christs birth is unsure , during his reign jesus christ was born and from that we get the " new era" the re-starting time of the calendar

Mozorov was the first to point out the similarities to the birth time and life of Jesus Christ and Saint Basil.

So was it the birth of Jesus Christ that set the "New Era " or was it Saint Basil , or was it neither of these , and it was Octavian Augustus , or was it Constantine , or are they both the same person in a time warp , if so which is the true one , and which is in error ???????

Edited February 15, 2014 by NO-ID-EA

[jaylemurph]

Fomenko...Book 2.

Identification of the 2nd and 3rd Roman Empires , as being the same history ( a chronological shift of circ. 330 years.)

These things are pretty well summed by the fact that you (or Fomenko) either don't know or are deliberately lying about the terms used. I think it's pretty clear Fomenko is lying in order to sell his books or confuse people ignorant of history that there's some merit to his theories.

The Romans themselves had specific terms for the differences between king and kingdom (rex and regnum) and empire and emperor (imperium and imperator). Your suggestion here is that Roman writers of history like Livy, Tacitus, Suetonius, et al., who all use the same terms in the same way, and all of whom lived in the empire and so do not pre-date the term, were too stupid to understand the difference of meanings in the word.

And you need to fact check if you're presenting the material as true. Plutatch, for instance, never calls Julius Caesar king. For the simple reason he never /was/ king. In point of fact, he refused a crown no less than three times. Don't believe me? Here's the text of Plutarch's Life of Ceasar (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Caesar*.html) to check and see.

So if your source is providing (deliberately) false information, how are to trust the conclusions made by him? If you're providing information and can't be trusted to fact-check or know what you're talking about, how can we rely on any conclusions you provide? In either case, the information you give cannot be trusted or relied upon for any sense of accuracy. You've by and large destroyed your capacity to be a reliable source or a thoughtful contributor, whatever you choose to present now.

--Jaylemurph

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

The medieval Hungarian author of the miniature one sees in fig 3.1, for instance, draws the "Mongols" that lead captives to the horde as Slavic characters dressed in Russian clothes, whereas their captives look distinctly European.

Now that is interesting, how "primary" is that source? did he see the raids or were they reported to him first or second hand?

Because, if he saw the raiders, and dressed them like Russians and made them Caucasian rather then Aisan, this suggests to me he DID see Caucasian Raiders.

[Van Gorp]

How about the "serious challenges" facing the "science" of Creationism? No reason to consider these, I suppose?

Harte

Here I agree, the consideration of the backgrounds of the ones stating it can add value, though for me it can't be ruled out as mere idiotic or ignorant because it seems to be part of a reasonable discussion on what you can call a scientific platform (that's what i meant that the challenges of carbon dating can be found in journals that in other cases you seem to take as scientific acceptable compared to mere fringe attack).

Fe one of the statements I based on was from Robert E. Lee, Anthropological Journal of Canada, Vol. 19, no. 3, 1981, p.9

So, for you (if i understand you correctly) the discussion about the accuracy of carbon dating always boils down at the end to the distinction between evolutionists (pro) and creationists(contra)? I must say I don't know much more about Robert E. Lee fe, was he indeed a proclaimed creationist and then the fact the discussion between creationist and evolutionist still being fought in scientific journals isn't worth considering also before judging all that come from one of the the two corners? If so, why call these thoughtlines done on a public forum idiotic or ignorant if even scientist are still bickering about it? It seems to me that in anyway, we just label the scepticism about carbon dating or fringe, or idiots that by accident got their PhD just as it pleases us.

[NO-ID-EA]

These things are pretty well summed by the fact that you (or Fomenko) either don't know or are deliberately lying about the terms used. I think it's pretty clear Fomenko is lying in order to sell his books or confuse people ignorant of history that there's some merit to his theories.

i have tried to condense about 12 pages of Fomenko , into these 3 posts , for instance he says , Plutarch said Sulla became an Emperor, however according to Scaliger he never was , but most authors also refer to him as Emperor, although some modern historians believe the title Emperor had a different meaning in Sulla's case. i dont know if Fomenko means because he was elected by his troops , rather than the senate, or because although born into the Gens Cornelia , they had fallen on hard times by the time he was born , and may have been seen to be a supporter of the populaires rather than the optimates ? but i have left out as much as i could , in order that the posts were not too long

The Romans themselves had specific terms for the differences between king and kingdom (rex and regnum) and empire and emperor (imperium and imperator). Your suggestion here is that Roman writers of history like Livy, Tacitus, Suetonius, et al., who all use the same terms in the same way, and all of whom lived in the empire and so do not pre-date the term, were too stupid to understand the difference of meanings in the word.

what are you on about , i have just tried to summarise some of what Fomenco says , i have not mentioned Livy , Tacitus or Seutonius, the only one i mentioned is what he says Plutarch wrote .

And you need to fact check if you're presenting the material as true. Plutatch, for instance, never calls Julius Caesar king. For the simple reason he never /was/ king. In point of fact, he refused a crown no less than three times. Don't believe me? Here's the text of Plutarch's Life of Ceasar (http://penelope.uchi...es/Caesar*.html) to check and see.

I am not presenting it as true , i am presenting it for those that may like to discuss it , but have not had the time to read the books themselves.

maybe Fomenko means what Plutarch said in Lives "but that which brought him the most apparent and mortal hatred, was his desire of being king ,

which gave the common people the first occasion to quarrel with him, and proved the most specious pretence to those who had been his secret enemies

those who gave it out that it was foretold in the Sybils books that the Romans should conquer the Parthians only when they fought against them under the conduct of a King and not before..... and one day as caesar was coming down from Alba to Rome , some were so bold as to salute him by the name of King "

but i am only guessing here all Fomenko says is Plutarch..book 1..pages 486-487 .

So if your source is providing (deliberately) false information, how are to trust the conclusions made by him? If you're providing information and can't be trusted to fact-check or know what you're talking about, how can we rely on any conclusions you provide? In either case, the information you give cannot be trusted or relied upon for any sense of accuracy. You've by and large destroyed your capacity to be a reliable source or a thoughtful contributor, whatever you choose to present now.

You have not convinced me it is false information, it may not have been as complete as you would have liked , but then i get the impression that anything i might provide will not be to your satisfaction, but i thank you for your encouragement for my efforts . HUH !

Edited February 16, 2014 by NO-ID-EA

[kmt_sesh]

*Snip*

I just wrote another post about someone citing specific examples from Fomenko, and only then realized I had missed a number of new posts from today which do just that.

LOL Look before you post, I guess.

Edited February 16, 2014 by kmt_sesh

[kmt_sesh]

Interesting idd to analyse, check or refute if you will.

Maybe Djenghis Kahn is a nice one.

Extra Statement below by

A.T.Fomenko , G.V.Nosowsky

We will reiterate some elements of our reconstruction. At the end of the XIII – beginning of the XIV cc. a final unification of the diverse peoples of Russia, instigated by Aeneas-Ryurik, took place. Partly peacefully, partly through military means, the people of Povolzhye (Volga Region) and Severnoye Prichernomorye (The Northern Black Sea Area) merged into a centralized state under the military = Hordian rule. It was fully realised under the Grand prince – khan, Khagan ( Kagan, Chagan) Georgii Danilovich, aka Genghis Khan or Gurkhan in the foreign sources. A vast and powerful state falls under his power.

Thanks for this example, Van Gorp. I appreciate your taking the time to write it up.

Perhaps I'm wrong but with this one example I have to wonder if Fomenko wrote his revisionist chronology at least partly for nationalistic reasons. Here we are supposed to imagine that Genghis Khan was actually an early Russian potentate. While it's true Khan's armies reached deep into Russia (primarily through the leadership of one of Genghis Khan's sons, as I recall), and helped to establish Moscow as an important city (which had been a backwards village till then), we must not allow ourselves to ignore the terrific amounts of evidence for the life of Genghis himself.

For one thing, Genghis Kahn was a title, not a name. This historical figure was born under the name Temujin. He took the title only after becoming the kahn and uniting all of the disparate Mongol tribes. The history of the Mongols under Genghis is hardly an unfathomable mystery to be reinvented for nationalistic agendas. Genghis himself fostered a purpose-made script to record the Mongol language, which was ultimately adapted from Aramaic. It was used, as one example, to pen the well-known Mongol record "The Secret History of Genghis Kahn," a preserved example of which I've seen with my own eyes (I guess in the end it's not so secret). This text was also translated into Chinese, because China would go on to become a very important part of the Mongol empire (much more so than Russia was).

What of Genghis' wives, sons, and grandsons? They're all a well-recorded part of history. It was the sons and grandsons who ultimately extended the Mongol empire to an extent Genghis himself probably couldn't have imagined (and ended up causing its collapse, as those ungrateful progeny of potentates always seem to do). Do these well-known wives, sons, and grandsons meld well with the family history of Danilovich?

I think you get the idea, even though I could go on writing a great deal more about the Mongols. Fomenko's conclusions here are untenable.

[kmt_sesh]

Moderator's note:

I'd like to remind posters in recent postings that examples from Fomenko are being provided. This doesn't necessarily mean the poster himself or herself is for or against what's being cited.

I myself asked for these specific examples, and appreciate posters taking the time to write up all of it. We should refrain from riding or needling the posters for doing this, or the whole exercise will be wasted.

Thanks.

kmt_sesh

[Kaa-Tzik]

Fomenko's "methods" by which he compreses history can be easily reduced to a few paragraphs.

One of his "proofs" that Ancient Greece was not ancient but medieval, is to point out that mid 19th century photographs of the Akropolis show a now demolished Ottoman tower. He shows from the photo that the stone used in constructuon of the tower is the same as that of the Nike temple, so "proving" that the Nike temple, and therefore the entire Akropolis and all of Ancient Greek history to actually be a medieval construct. That the Ottomans would have used stone from nearby existing ancient buildings does not seem to occur to him, or suit his purpose of course.

On Classical authors, such as Tacitus, he says that they are all medieval monks or fraudsters. He does this out of ignorance or incredulity of how these works have come down to us. He sees the dates of when these works began to be printed for a wider audience from the beginning of the Renaissance, and declares that is when they were first written. He makes no mention that these works were never "lost", but had existed in copies of copies in various places, usually religious, within the area occupied by the Roman Empire, mostly the Eastern/Byzantine. He does not mention that the reason they were not prominent during the middle ages is that they were not Christian works, and so languished un-read and un-regarded until the Renaissance.

On Ancient Egypt, he makes bizarre mental tricks to say that the two Dendera zodiacs, and the round one in particular, show patterns of constellations that could not have existed thousands of years ago. He cynically uses an old debate on the age of these zodiacs to try show that ancient history does not exist and is a construct. The debate centered on whether the zodiacs dated from the New Kingdom or were later. It is probable that before hieroglyphs were fully understood, that those who argued for a New Kingdom date did not know at that time that Dendera was build during the Ptolemaic epoch. Champollion rectified this error and the round zodiac has now been dated to 50 BC. However, Fomenko will not believe the reality that hieroglyphs and modern scientific research tell him and persists in saying that the zodiac dates to the 11th Century AD, as he will not allow anything to disrupt this wild idea that 1 000 years should be removed from history. He also says that many AE monuments, tomb painting etc are not ancient, but Christian, his "proof" being that the ankh is simply an Egyptian variant of the Christian cross, in his opinion. Now, we know there are arguments to say that the crucifix has come from the ankh, and that is another debate, but Fomenko turns it around and says the ankh comes from the crucifix, thus "proving" that Ancient Egypt is not so ancient and wipes out several millenia of their history in the stroke of a pen. An even more ridiculous example of him "proving " AE to be a Christian and not so ancient civilisation is to point out that the obelisks in Rome are topped by crucifixes, so "must" have been constructed as Christian monuments in the period 15th to 18th Century AD. Fomenko mentions AE often in his books and the Dendera zodiac does seem rather crucial for him to "proof" that history can be compressed. That he can so easily be proved wrong on this one crucial aspect sayts much about everything else.

I see there is a disconnect between his works in Russian and that in English, which appear to be compendiums judging by descriptions on Amazon. The book I refered to in my post #94, which deals in depth with the Dendera zodiac, is, in Russian, Book 2 tome 2 (second part of the second series of books) "The Ancient Heavenly Calender". I have no idea where that equates to in the English versions, if at all.

Edited February 16, 2014 by Kaa-Tzik

[questionmark]

One of his "proofs" that Ancient Greece was not ancient but medieval, is to point out that mid 19th century photographs of the Akropolis show a now demolished Ottoman tower. He shows from the photo that the stone used in constructuon of the tower is the same as that of the Nike temple, so "proving" that the Nike temple, and therefore the entire Akropolis and all of Ancient Greek history to actually be a medieval construct. That the Ottomans would have used stone from nearby existing ancient buildings does not seem to occur to him, or suit his purpose of course.

Which shows how much he knows. The Ottomans fortified the acropolis. The Parthenon, for example was mostly intact until those jokers used it as powder magazine, which blew up after being hit by a Venetian shell..

And that can be easily checked in many independent sources.

Fomenko's work is nothing but the pseudo scientific justification for national chauvinism.

Edited February 16, 2014 by questionmark

[Kaa-Tzik]

Fomenko's work is nothing but the pseudo scientific justification for national chauvinism.

That he is chauvanistic is not in doubt, nor is the chauvanism of foreign authors and indeed entire countries...

The prime motive, in my understanding, for Fomenko's chauvanism is not to say, as is implied, that Russia is better than any other country, but to reverse the incorrect idea that Russia is Asiatic, and by that I mean ethnic Russians and culture whose modern, Christian, origins are in Kievan Rus and not the Mongols.

Edited February 16, 2014 by Kaa-Tzik

[Harte]

Here I agree, the consideration of the backgrounds of the ones stating it can add value, though for me it can't be ruled out as mere idiotic or ignorant because it seems to be part of a reasonable discussion on what you can call a scientific platform (that's what i meant that the challenges of carbon dating can be found in journals that in other cases you seem to take as scientific acceptable compared to mere fringe attack).

Fe one of the statements I based on was from Robert E. Lee, Anthropological Journal of Canada, Vol. 19, no. 3, 1981, p.9

So, for you (if i understand you correctly) the discussion about the accuracy of carbon dating always boils down at the end to the distinction between evolutionists (pro) and creationists(contra)? I must say I don't know much more about Robert E. Lee fe, was he indeed a proclaimed creationist and then the fact the discussion between creationist and evolutionist still being fought in scientific journals isn't worth considering also before judging all that come from one of the the two corners? If so, why call these thoughtlines done on a public forum idiotic or ignorant if even scientist are still bickering about it? It seems to me that in anyway, we just label the scepticism about carbon dating or fringe, or idiots that by accident got their PhD just as it pleases us.

Originally, you implied that carbon dates are ignored if they don't fit some "mainstream" timeline. I am aware of dates being dismissed.

However, thye shortcomings of C14 you point out are reasons these dates are dismissed.

Realize that it's not just the detractors that are aware of where C14 can run into problems - the people who use it are (of course) quite aware of this as well.

No site is authoritatively dated only by using a single dating method. Contamination does happen. You can't tell in most cases whether or how a sample became contaminated with old carbon - you have to test it and use common sense.

Chicken bones in South America were dated using C14 and the resulting date pre-dated the introduction of the chicken to the continent. Some people think this may be evidence of pre-Columbian contact, and it may be.

But it is also noted that chickens swallow pebbles. These pebbles are kept in the gizzard and are used to grind food. The chickens in question were in an area that included shell middens. If the chickens swallowed shell pieces, they easily could have digested old carbon, skewing the C14 dates of their bones.

The chicken question is not settled yet and this is because only the single method could be used to date them.

This is what I meant when I said that if you don't know why a particular C14 date was dismissed, then it's just ignorance to claim it was because it didn't fit some mainstream timeline. What if the bones of George Washington were exhumed and dated with C14 and the result was that he lived 15,000 years ago. Wouldn't you think that such a date should be dismissed because it doesn't fit the "mainstream" timeline, or do you think we should simply say "Man - that guy lived a long time!"?

When you look into the detractors, they're not ALL Creationists. Zahi Hawass, for example, didn't like in C14 dating - he thought it was too iffy. This might be because of the C14 dates from the Great Pyramid, which didn't exactly match Egyptology's date (it was pretty close to it) and the Egyptology date had a lot of work behind it. Or, it could be because of the Thera C14 date - which came out to around a hundred years earlier than had previously been thought (and a lot of other parts of the timeline are based on the previously believed date.) This is just speculation on my part. I doubt anyone really knows much about what goes on inside Hawass' head.

When looking into the limits of C14, always be on the lookout for phrases such as I quoted - the Earth's not that old - the geologic column could be overturned by some catastrophic event - living mollusks date to thousands of years old - or the old standby - living grass that is dated thousands of years old (grass next to a highway absorbs ancient carbon from fossil fuel exhausts.) These sorts of things are hallmarks of the Creationist argument.

Harte

[kmt_sesh]

Fomenko's "methods" by which he compreses history can be easily reduced to a few paragraphs.

One of his "proofs" that Ancient Greece was not ancient but medieval, is to point out that mid 19th century photographs of the Akropolis show a now demolished Ottoman tower. He shows from the photo that the stone used in constructuon of the tower is the same as that of the Nike temple, so "proving" that the Nike temple, and therefore the entire Akropolis and all of Ancient Greek history to actually be a medieval construct. That the Ottomans would have used stone from nearby existing ancient buildings does not seem to occur to him, or suit his purpose of course.

On Classical authors, such as Tacitus, he says that they are all medieval monks or fraudsters. He does this out of ignorance or incredulity of how these works have come down to us. He sees the dates of when these works began to be printed for a wider audience from the beginning of the Renaissance, and declares that is when they were first written. He makes no mention that these works were never "lost", but had existed in copies of copies in various places, usually religious, within the area occupied by the Roman Empire, mostly the Eastern/Byzantine. He does not mention that the reason they were not prominent during the middle ages is that they were not Christian works, and so languished un-read and un-regarded until the Renaissance.

Excellent examples. Kaa-Tzik. I don't think I have anything to add to the situation with the Acropolis and Classical writers. You did a good job explaining the absurdity of this.

On Ancient Egypt, he makes bizarre mental tricks to say that the two Dendera zodiacs, and the round one in particular, show patterns of constellations that could not have existed thousands of years ago. He cynically uses an old debate on the age of these zodiacs to try show that ancient history does not exist and is a construct. The debate centered on whether the zodiacs dated from the New Kingdom or were later. It is probable that before hieroglyphs were fully understood, that those who argued for a New Kingdom date did not know at that time that Dendera was build during the Ptolemaic epoch. Champollion rectified this error and the round zodiac has now been dated to 50 BC. However, Fomenko will not believe the reality that hieroglyphs and modern scientific research tell him and persists in saying that the zodiac dates to the 11th Century AD, as he will not allow anything to disrupt this wild idea that 1 000 years should be removed from history. He also says that many AE monuments, tomb painting etc are not ancient, but Christian, his "proof" being that the ankh is simply an Egyptian variant of the Christian cross, in his opinion. Now, we know there are arguments to say that the crucifix has come from the ankh, and that is another debate, but Fomenko turns it around and says the ankh comes from the crucifix, thus "proving" that Ancient Egypt is not so ancient and wipes out several millenia of their history in the stroke of a pen. An even more ridiculous example of him "proving " AE to be a Christian and not so ancient civilisation is to point out that the obelisks in Rome are topped by crucifixes, so "must" have been constructed as Christian monuments in the period 15th to 18th Century AD. Fomenko mentions AE often in his books and the Dendera zodiac does seem rather crucial for him to "proof" that history can be compressed. That he can so easily be proved wrong on this one crucial aspect sayts much about everything else.

You also did a very good job here, but it's ancient Egypt and that is my chief interest, so I can't help but to embellish your already well-worded argument. I just have to admit I am flabbergasted (and that's not a word I often use) about Fomenko's spin on crucifixes on top of obelisks in Rome. I don't understand how he could present this as credible evidence. Most of the surviving Egyptian obelisks happen to be in Rome due to Roman emperors' and early popes' interest in ancient Egypt. And those early Church fathers liked to "Christianize" pagan monuments—so they stuck crucifixes on the obelisks. It's no more complicated than that. Obelisks still in Egypt do not bear crucifixes, and relief carvings of obelisks (of which there are many) do not show crucifixes. I'm sorry to say, but this idea is just idiotic. Fomenko seems completely to ignore (or is not aware of) the fact that most extant obelisks are inscribed, including most of those in Rome. And they are inscribed with texts of kings describing veneration of pagan Egyptian deities, most commonly Amun.

What's true is that a lot of early Christianity occurred in Egypt. And the Coptic sect of Christianity in Egypt did in fact use the ankh on occasion as a symbol for the crucifix, but we see the ankh in pagan Egyptian iconography as far back as 5,000 years ago. Does Fomenko really try to compress more than 3,000 years of pharaonic history, or is he simply not well versed on pharaonic Egypt? This is rather startlingly uninformed. The crucifix of Christianity is hardly mysterious, which makes me wonder about Fomenko's familiarity with even the most basic icons and tenets of Christianity. It was a common means for the Romans to execute rebellious slaves, people guilty of sedition, and other high crimes. This has nothing to do with the ankh.

I agree with your assessment of the Dendera zodiac. It's basically just a mixture of Greek and Egyptian iconography and beliefs. It's definitely not the oldest star chart, however. Does Fomenko attempt to address the star chart in the cenotaph (TT353) of Senemut? It dates to Dynasty 18 and is around 3,400 years old.

That he is chauvanistic is not in doubt, nor is the chauvanism of foreign authors and indeed entire countries...

The prime motive, in my understanding, for Fomenko's chauvanism is not to say, as is implied, that Russia is better than any other country, but to reverse the incorrect idea that Russia is Asiatic, and by that I mean ethnic Russians and culture whose modern, Christian, origins are in Kievan Rus and not the Mongols.

It seems like an odd motivation to try to rewrite history, but then again I can't pretend to understand his mindset. Nor am I Russian, but it's no secret that Russia has a lot of ethnic diversity. I for one have never come across anyone's mention that the Russians are Asiatic. And while the Mongols certainly entered, interacted with, and influenced early Russia to some extent, I've never come across mention that they originated from the Mongols. That would be silly, too.

[kmt_sesh]

Originally, you implied that carbon dates are ignored if they don't fit some "mainstream" timeline. I am aware of dates being dismissed.

However, thye shortcomings of C14 you point out are reasons these dates are dismissed.

Realize that it's not just the detractors that are aware of where C14 can run into problems - the people who use it are (of course) quite aware of this as well.

No site is authoritatively dated only by using a single dating method. Contamination does happen. You can't tell in most cases whether or how a sample became contaminated with old carbon - you have to test it and use common sense.

Chicken bones in South America were dated using C14 and the resulting date pre-dated the introduction of the chicken to the continent. Some people think this may be evidence of pre-Columbian contact, and it may be.

But it is also noted that chickens swallow pebbles. These pebbles are kept in the gizzard and are used to grind food. The chickens in question were in an area that included shell middens. If the chickens swallowed shell pieces, they easily could have digested old carbon, skewing the C14 dates of their bones.

The chicken question is not settled yet and this is because only the single method could be used to date them.

This is what I meant when I said that if you don't know why a particular C14 date was dismissed, then it's just ignorance to claim it was because it didn't fit some mainstream timeline. What if the bones of George Washington were exhumed and dated with C14 and the result was that he lived 15,000 years ago. Wouldn't you think that such a date should be dismissed because it doesn't fit the "mainstream" timeline, or do you think we should simply say "Man - that guy lived a long time!"?

When you look into the detractors, they're not ALL Creationists. Zahi Hawass, for example, didn't like in C14 dating - he thought it was too iffy. This might be because of the C14 dates from the Great Pyramid, which didn't exactly match Egyptology's date (it was pretty close to it) and the Egyptology date had a lot of work behind it. Or, it could be because of the Thera C14 date - which came out to around a hundred years earlier than had previously been thought (and a lot of other parts of the timeline are based on the previously believed date.) This is just speculation on my part. I doubt anyone really knows much about what goes on inside Hawass' head.

When looking into the limits of C14, always be on the lookout for phrases such as I quoted - the Earth's not that old - the geologic column could be overturned by some catastrophic event - living mollusks date to thousands of years old - or the old standby - living grass that is dated thousands of years old (grass next to a highway absorbs ancient carbon from fossil fuel exhausts.) These sorts of things are hallmarks of the Creationist argument.

Harte

To add, a sound C14 test will require numerous samples and more than one lab. The process is highly scrutinized and monitored for fact checking. A single sample from one specimen is not usually considered desirable, for example. Those who argue against carbon dating are usually those who don't understand the science behind it or the methodology in using it. And a statement by a creationist—any creationist—is always suspect. Creationists have a vested interest in ignoring sound science.

Your remarks about Hawass are spot on, especially the part about no one really knowing what goes on inside his head. Hawass was an experienced and professional archaeologist but never seemed to be scientifically well rounded. He often got into trouble for saying bizarre things in his countless TV appearances and then contradicting himself later on. For example, he went on record some years back saying that genetic testing would never be done on mummies under Egypt's control because the science wasn't reliable—and then went on in 2007 through 2010 to lead an extensive genetic analysis of numerous Amarna Period mummies. The ironic thing is, he swore left and right that the DNA findings were absolutely reliable while several world-leading ancient-DNA labs expressed severe doubts about the reliability of the analysis…which was Hawass's original stance on the subject.

I've never understood why he was so hesitant with C14 dating, considering the standard tool it is in archaeology. Your mention of the analyses conducted on Old Kingdom monuments might be correct, for all I know. If Hawass was placing all his cards on the hope that all of the findings would've perfectly melded with conventional dates, he was delusional. And the fact that the Great Pyramid tested as perhaps a century older than everyone thought is not at all surprising. This is perhaps to be expected for something dating to the Early Bronze Age.

The Great Pyramid happens to be a perfect example of how carbon dating is properly conducted. More than forty samples were extracted from its mortar content, and as I recall only one sample tested wildly off. This also is not surprising. And while this sample was not used in the final conclusions because contamination was obviously in play, it was still published in the report.

I think more than anything Hawass was just put off by the fact that he didn't really control these extensive C14 analyses. This project was headed up by his friend and putative "mentor" Mark Lehner, There were no TV cameras for Hawass to dominate.