It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The conspiracy to suppress knowledge

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 09:16 PM
link   
This thread is dedicated to looking at the concept/idea that some organization would try to "hide" an advanced human civilization or an alien influenced civilization.

Evidence and speculation should be limited to the aspects of the archaeological conspiracy and not a general "rule the world elite" conspiracy.

Some specific things we are looking for:

Who would/could be doing this?

The motive behind it?

How long has it been in operation?

Could such a conspiracy operate without being detected by the mainstream?

What portion of the mainstream scientists are "in on it"?

So let fly




posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 09:28 PM
link   
All you have to do is read a little history.The catholic church has been hiding archaeological evidence for about 1800 years.The vatican library is replete with ancient scripts,scrolls and tablets that date back a few thousand years.One would think that truth and knowledge went hand in hand,yet there is no public access to the vatican library.What do they have to hide?What knowledge could be so devastating to thier authority? To disallow a scholarly study of the material smacks of conspiriacy.



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 09:40 PM
link   
I just add a link to the Vatican library


Vatican Library




The secret archives

asv.vatican.va...






Mod Note: Forum Image Linking Policy – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 5-4-2008 by Jbird]



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Very nice.I went to the secret archives and typed a search for Egyptian text,Summerian text,Egyptian papayrus,Egyptian tablets,Summerian tablets,and Egyptian and Summerian scrolls.Even Mayan codex.

The showed nothing in those searches! One would think that biblical scholars would cross refrence other material.Or do you think that they just accept things as blind faith?



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 01:50 AM
link   
I look forward to adding to this thread.

To begin with, it wouldnt necessarily have to be the humans covering-up evidence it could be the extraterrestrials themselves.

The reasons for this might be psychological and political (non-intervention policy so that those humans can grow on their own).



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
Who would/could be doing this?


options:
1)survivors of advanced civilization who managed to hold on to ANY of that tech, even knowledge like social engineering tactics.

- imagine a group of survivors from Atlantis, from some religious organization that internally had been studying in some way human behavior to maximize power/profits/control over population. They managed to get out with some of their knowledge, maybe including some gadgets/tech ahead most of the rest of the 10000bc world (eg writing) and form a secret society to exploit this advantage.
- they would have a motive to destroy all evidence of Atlantis to stop other people finding the "tech"
- the advantage of the "tech" would put them in positions of power through the years
- all current mainstream religions are potentially inventions of this group (however unlikely), since they predate them. I would consider Christianity a strong (as in at least slightly possible not as in definite) candidate for this claim.
- likely they could take this technological advantage and keep developing it to stay ahead of the rest of the world, if organised in a suitable way
- maybe initially it was not sinister(*), and not until fairly recently (hundreds/1 or 2 thousand years) did this tech/knowledge start being exploited for power
(*) eg the supposed keepers of secret ancient vimana tech, trying to keep dangerous knowledge from the wrong hands
- Even after tech is no longer state of the art, if they still exist, they will need to suppress knowledge of atlantis to remain hidden (ie if you found a 10,000 year old atlantis maths book tommorow, and could prove it, people would start wondering where all the other evidence for atlantis was, and might discover that it had been suppressed).
- DOES NOT require that the "organisation" stay the same (or remain active, see next option) since then, "takeovers", "mergers", knowledge losses and rediscoveries are possible.
2)Later discoverers of hidden ancient powerful knowledge
- basically same as above except they must cover up all finds that predate their personal discovery of the tech.
3)Unrelated already existing "illuminati" style group which discovers existence of ancient civilisation
- illuminati group stumbles on atlantis during attempts to take over world (see hitler/nazi's for possible example)
- suppress what they see as uplifting knowledge ( eg mankind was helped by friendly aliens, they could come back to help again)
- suppress what they see as knowledge damaging to the mindset they want (mankind was greater than now or impressive many many years ago, and was destroyed, perhaps more than once. This ruins the daydream sheeple mindset of "everything will get better in the future, dont worry about it..."
4)Organized religions (or just vigilante true believers) destroy anything counter to their "faith"(of course if they had true "faith" nothing could counter it...)
- fairly self evident (think inquisition) and certainly I think this is a large part of what has happened, though probably not in the recent past, as vatican/other religious groups power has waned enough over the years enough that some relics should have slipped through, so either they are more influential than I think, or another group (see 1), 2) or 3) for my best guesses) has stepped in to take over the suppression.



The motive behind it?

went into that already. briefly:
- hidden knowledge is power, suppression removes competition
- subsequently must be kept suppressed to stop discovery of previous suppression
- religious issues (and the power that comes with controlling that, think roman catholic)
- lone discoverers of amazing gadgets may prefer keeping for personal use and benefit to the possible ridicule and danger from disclosure
- trying to keep dangerous knowledge from the wrong hands, eg someone responsible finding vimana/nuclear bomb tech in the 1800's



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by daddyroo45
Very nice.I went to the secret archives and typed a search for Egyptian text,

They won't have any. Egyptian texts were not translated until the 1840's.


Summerian text

Ditto. Knowledge of cuneiform was lost until the early 1800's when the translations were begun by someone from the Church of England:
en.wikipedia.org...


Egyptian papayrus

This was never considered valuable until people learned to read it... in the 1800's. Scraps and scrolls were written over or thrown out.


Egyptian tablets

There aren't any. Egyptians wrote on papyrus and painted on walls and and tombs and carved stele which are big huge horking lumps of stone. There was no market for such things until the antiquities craze of the 1800's.


Summerian tablets

These were "lumps of clay with weird lines" by the time the Catholic Church began (around 300 AD). They had no monetary value and the last person who could read them died nearly a thousand years before the Christian religion started. The Vatican never collected them, but there's a huge collection in various museums. The entire collection of what's been translated is available online.


Egyptian and Summerian scrolls

The Sumerians didn't write on scrolls, I'm afraid. Their libraries are clay and wax tablets. Egyptians wrote on scrolls, but (see above) the material wasn't kept because no one could read them. After the conquest of Egypt by Alexander the Great around 400 BC or so, records were generally written in Greek and later in Latin.


Even Mayan codex.

The Codices were kept by the Spanish royalty and were never sent to the Vatican. The Spanish government holds these treasures.


One would think that biblical scholars would cross refrence other material. Or do you think that they just accept things as blind faith?

The material that is kept and referenced is Christian material, for the purposes of making laws and keeping record of what was done by the Church (which is why there are records of confessions and tortures.)

Even if they had (and could read) the cuneiform Code of Hammarabi, it would have been useless to them. The treasure there is gold and precious stones in the form of Christian icons (no keeping evil ones; they were melted down) and the scrolls there were research for Christian writers. They were interested in arguments such as "did Jesus really say he was God or did he just say he was the Son of God" (known as the Arian heresy.)

The early Church destroyed letters from Early Church Fathers (which might have been in the Vatican's library at one time) involving matters that the Church later disagreed on. The contents of some of these letters are known (from letters in monastaries, etc, which were not sent to the Vatican but were exchanged between abbots and so forth) but the letters are lost.

But they didn't keep irrelevant stuff, nor did they go hunting for ancient treasures. They were more interested in having old idols and pagan gold melted and blessed and shaped to make new Christian icons and in collecting letters on purported miracles and keeping track of finances and important writings (St. Augustine) than they were in collecting every scrap of paper in the Mediterranean area.

You see this same policy in EVERY library -- it has to choose what's relevant for the people it serves. I suspect that your local library doesn't have any books written in the Madurese language and that pastors and local religious leaders don't seek out Madurese writings -- even Christian ones -- in studying the Bible and in writing sermons. Those books are of no use to the religious community.

Same with the Vatican library.

[edit on 4-4-2008 by Byrd]



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

How long has it been in operation?


Personally i think the Illuminati as demonstrated/dominated by Rothschilds/other banking interests has been around for at least a few hundred years. I think, however, they either derived from or infiltrated and took over older secretive societies (think masons, templars, jesuits) that have been round for millenia, and may derive from even older ancient egyptian(pre?)etc "mystery schools" and so forth

I did briefly read an interesting thing by a russian mathematician showing how the roman timeline (emperors etc) was a plagiarism, with one possibly real lot of rulers duplicated and modified twice more to span three times the timespan. I'd love to see someone with knowledge of the roman timeperiods discussed look through it and discuss their findings. The guy/group behind that research found similar duplications with biblical kings and possibly other king lists (cant remember), and blamed the Jesuits for basically "making up" large swathes of history. Ill find a link and post it after I finish this post

So: first off, I think it is pretty much a given that the roman catholics would have handled most of the suppression since they've been round. Anything still round would have been either really well hidden or found and hoarded/destroyed during the inquisition.

However I think that in the past ~150 years the suppression has been also handled by others who control the media round the western world (I do notice that all sorts of "amazing finds" are announced/mentioned in russian and indian media, whether fraudulent or not), ie those known as the illuminati, and more importantly, by the mindset they encourage and the free-thinking they discourage.


Could such a conspiracy operate without being detected by the mainstream?

My personal opinion is a resounding YES. They DEFINE what is mainstream (through control of media etc) therefore conspiracy theory is presented as being "kooky" "woo woo" "crazy" etc, no matter how fact based etc. Just consider, how many of your (non ATS reading) friends know about any of the CONFIRMED conspiracies that have happened, or any of the well backed up ones? How many would believe you if you told them about project northwoods? How many would believe you if you told them the federal reserve bank is privately owned and effectively creates money out of nothing? or that osama had nothing to do with sadam? or that Bush's granddad funded nazi's? or that Bush and Kerry went to the same school, belong to the same ultra exclusive secret society, and are cousins, and both related to the english royal family?
all these are things that can be discovered through mainstream verifiable sources, yet are either virtually unknown or "controversial" when they shouldn't be. Hell some of these have been talked about in National media by sitting presidents and respected congressmen, yet are considered "crazy talk". THATS CRAZY to me!



What portion of the mainstream scientists are "in on it"?

I would imagine very few. just to throw a number out there, I would say less than 1 in 20 would have any idea anything was being suppressed and 1 in 100 might actually be consciously suppressing things.

The way I see this working is the much revered pyramid: people at the very top know whats going on, and each level down know less and less, and at the bottom you have those that have no idea they are part of the suppression, but have been raised/educated/brainwashed in such a way to make the suppression (instant doubting and lack of interest in truly researching anything "alternative", subconciously giving weight to any allegations/indications of fraud/error when the topic is controversial) automatic. Sometimes they may need a little prompting, but again, this comes in a form they see as innocent (eg corporate sponsor encourages them to denounce "woo woo" scientist at their institution "avoid getting a bad name".



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Yes good point, forgot that one. The other possible "organisation" behind suppression is:
5) aliens. Either a remnant of aliens once worshipped as gods, who later lost their tech and then....

Its interesting to think about this: If we sent a mission to another planet, after conquering interstellar travel (or interplanetary), the people we send WOULD NOT necessarily be super geniuses with the ability to recreate all our technology from scratch in the case of being stranded here. stranded aliens might decide to live it out as gods for a while as they waited for the locals to catch up technology enough to build a starship so they could go home. Who knows how long they might live, or if they might pass genetic memory to their offspring or something, and maybe after facing many revolts from slaves (ala 10,000 BC) they decided it is easier to use the knowledge and gadgets they do still have to rule from behind the scenes (or maybe they're not all power hungry psychopaths, but then I cant think of why they would cover up the knowledge hehe)

6)or something like David Ickes theory, with lizard people from another dimension controlling those with reptilian blood (or whatever it is he says) and wanting to remain hidden

7)Or just returning aliens with some reason for needing earths help (refugee location or resource mining seem to be popular...) wanting to keep knowledge of themselves and previous visits out of normal humans hands

8)or, and this at least makes some sense to me unlike most of the others I just proposed, the governments and black ops groups dealing with the aliens want to keep alien tech to themselves, hence hiding evidence of previous visitations/tech.

enough on aliens from me for now (Im no expert by any means, I'll let others discuss possible alien involvement).



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   
I would like to propose the following regarding evidence for this:

IF there is a conspiracy to hide Atlantis/some other ancient civilisation:

evidence available to us is NOT likely to come in the form of physical artifacts found in completely unchallengeable circumstances (eg ancient computer or something like that found by entire trusted archeology team and sworn testimony/photographic evidence etc of such)
Simply by the fact that none have been found so far that do not have doubt associated with them, we can conclude they either don't exist or the coverup works quite well.

HOWEVER

1) the important words in there were "do not have doubt associated with them".

- (unsubstantiated or not) Allegations of fraud work well, since that would be the first thought on most mainstream archeologists mind in the case of an amazing find. Even if a find is reasonably convincing when researched fully, allegations of fraud would discourage most people from digging deep enough to find the truth.
- interfering with dating processes etc to introduce doubt to the dating of things
- bribing/threatening discoverers to "admit to hoax". I've seen a couple of somewhat convincing finds where people have later "admitted" to them being hoaxes. THIS (DIS)PROVES NOTHING IF THERE IS A CONSPIRACY(*) especially if the confessor could not physically have made the object in question. Court room confessions of guilt are normally still investigated to make sure the persons story checks out, since false confessions to protect people are a possibility etc. I think it would be a very rare person who would choose to stand on his/her principles and continue to claim a find is real, given the only options of pain, murder, similar for friends family VS bribe for the confession.

(*) but is enough to remove it permanently from the books of "serious" archeology.


Now given the above and extensions of the above tactics, consider how many incredible discoveries have been claimed and then thought to be frauds/hoaxes. Obviously some probably were, but what of the rest?
(I might make a list at some stage of some I find plausable as coverups)

Also interesting to note is that as far as many Illuminati researchers are concerned, mainstream media control by "them" was not really perfected until early 1900's, It is interesting how many OOPART stories exist in the late 1800's, often with sworn testimonies from police officers and other respected community members. These seem to be a lot less common after the supposed Illuminati media control was improved...



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 10:02 AM
link   
I should also add:

Any non working (they would be thousands of years old) technological relics found up until modern times would simply be thought to be interesting sculptures or things to melt down for scrap. What would a middle age farmer do/think of a rusted broken helicopter they dug up in their field? or a broken laptop? and if these ugly twisted lumps of gadgets had gold or gems on them. they would be melted down and destroyed.

in other words: It is only recently that these things would need to be actively suppressed on a wide scale.


I should also mention a point I made in the forbidden Egyptology thread:

I personally am of the opinion that Atlantis, if it existed and was technologically advanced, and the corresponding indian "vimana" flying civilisation, were VERY socially stratified, ie the normal people were living in bronze age or worse conditions, with no education to speak of regarding this tech, while the very few lucky elite kept the secrets of flight/whatever else to themselves. Given a world population at the time of millions, and an elite technologically active population of a few hundred at most, and given the secrecy with which the tech was kept, how many artifacts might we expect to find? especially if atlantis went under the ocean and many mainland towns were destroyed by the preceding war (nuclear?)/rising seawater/tsunamis from whatever sunk atlantis? NOT MANY

maybe one in 10,000 artifacts from the time might be technological, and this is (wrongly I would think) assuming that the technological stuff wasnt more fragile than stone or clay tablets, bone and stone tools, etc etc.

All this means that the "coverup" might not be nearly as hard as originally thought.



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 10:31 AM
link   
AHA

Byrd, Hanslune, have you heard of "The New Chronology of Anatoly Timofeevich Fomenko" ?
en.wikipedia.org...(Fomenko)

He basically seems to have done the sort of analysis you might do if trying to determine if an essay was a plagiarised from another and applied it to history as we know it. What he apparently found was that various histories appeard to be copies of each other, with names and dates altered and events slightly mixed around, but basic things like length or rule, method of death/loss of power etc staying fairly similar


hehe apparently if you can prove him wrong you can get 10000 USD (whats that, 50 euros? (jk))
www.prweb.com...

and speaking of suppression, history channel would not advertise his book

www.prweb.com...


I remember reading about this on a site with much more info than wikipedia (and many better examples of the doubling up) I will attempt to locate.

(I should add, I have not read the books, and therefore find it hard to accept his far shorter history, though I'm not going to diss it without reading it, however his evidence showing the time line of history to be plagiarized is quite interesting and I think I'm going to have to look into it more.)




[edit on 4-4-2008 by diablomonic]



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Hello Diablomonic

Well that is a lot of posting. I have limited time at the moment so I'll comment on your last post first.

From your wikipedia link


According to Fomenko, the history of humankind goes only as far back as AD 800.




That archaeological dating, dendrochronological dating, paleographical dating, numismatic dating, carbon dating, and other methods of dating of ancient sources and artifacts known today are erroneous, non-exact or dependent on traditional chronology; that their use in conjunction as 'confiming' one another is a statistical fallacy - probabilities can't be added.


His idea is unique and interesting but too unsupportive by fact. He also fails to take into account the non-western cultures. Sorry Diablomonic I find that ideal -based on reading at this link

Fomenko

to be completely without merit.

Bryd what do you think?



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddyroo45
All you have to do is read a little history.The catholic church has been hiding archaeological evidence for about 1800 years.The vatican library is replete with ancient scripts,scrolls and tablets that date back a few thousand years.


Awesome example daddyroo...it's always irritated me about how many antique artifacts, information and objects the Vatican hoards...artwork also. I am surprised more Catholics don't wonder why and question this?

Excellent example



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by diablomonic
AHA

Byrd, Hanslune, have you heard of "The New Chronology of Anatoly Timofeevich Fomenko" ?
en.wikipedia.org...(Fomenko)


Not until now, no.


He basically seems to have done the sort of analysis you might do if trying to determine if an essay was a plagiarised from another and applied it to history as we know it. What he apparently found was that various histories appeard to be copies of each other, with names and dates altered and events slightly mixed around, but basic things like length or rule, method of death/loss of power etc staying fairly similar

He seems to only be considering texts and only a select number of them and does not consider other evidence. So, for instance, he apparently ignores millions of pounds of coinage and other artifacts such as graveyards with dates and genetic diversity and so on and so forth.

I also note that he doesn't count temple inscriptions and things like tomb paintings, though I suspect he's found a way to "explain" those.

I'm also somewhat "boggled" that his idea of "comparing history" is to track what the length of someone's rule was and as long as it was "close" (8 years in one case), it's considered a match. Oh yes, and it's okay to drop some of them out, according to his rules.



hehe apparently if you can prove him wrong you can get 10000 USD (whats that, 50 euros? (jk))
www.prweb.com...


Hmm... let's see what his conditions are...


and speaking of suppression, history channel would not advertise his book

They don't advertise fiction.

Now, to be fair, he's a very real mathemetician and he works with group and set theory (which I can only tiptoe into and then look around and look boggled at all the stuff.) He's basing some of his stuff on this.

But I do see evidence that he's wrong. For instance, there's a copy of Tacitus that dates to 850 in the Vatican library (so that would make some of his assumptions wrong. I don't know if you're in the mood to read a mildly long-ish web page, but there's a superb answer here about the Tacitus: answers.google.com...

We do see manuscript fragments that are very early and with good provenance.: www.godandscience.org...

However, I suspect he won't accept those dates.

I also notice a rather disturbing ethnicism in his writings; the Russian peoples as the originators of many of the good things and the corrupt Church/Europeans as the originators of deceit.



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


Hmmm

Like I said, I'm more convinced by his evidence mainstream archeology is wrong than by his proposed replacement (especially since I really know nothing of what his supposed replacement IS). There are many rulers we know very little about except the name. Doesn't mean (nor do I believe) it is ALL wrong (mainstream ahistorical timelines) but then again, I haven't read the books (yet, downloading at the moment), so how can I judge his argument?

also don't go off the wikipedia description, that example given there is a bad one (deliberately?). I tend to find any subject I actually know a lot about, and which has any controversy to it, to be completely inadequately described in wikipedia (*)(but unfortunately I'm still having trouble finding my original source). By that I mean many controversial aspects of things are NOT EVEN MENTIONED and the general tactic appears to be one of a strawman argument: set up the argument as an easily debunked one by taking the weirder beliefs people have on an issue without giving the more verified ones, then "debunk" this weak argument.

(*)Therefore I assume that this subject I don't know much about to be likely written about in a similar manner

when I first found this it was on another website I cant seem to locate, but his examples were WAY more detailed than than, matching up not just dates and lengths of rule, but delving into the stories surrounding rulers:
eg first triumvirate matched up with second, titles and life stories of various rulers matched up (some were virtually identical) all within the two periods in question in the order given by fomenko. It was quite impressive, but I did want to see someone with the requisite knowledge look over it...


Oh also


I'm also somewhat "boggled" that his idea of "comparing history" is to track what the length of someone's rule was and as long as it was "close" (8 years in one case), it's considered a match. Oh yes, and it's okay to drop some of them out, according to his rules.


Despite how strange this might sound at the offset, It actually makes PERFECT sense to me given we are looking for plagiarism, and the usual method for plagiarism is to take what is written, delete stuff, change some names or numbers, perhaps jumble it round slightly?

His logic (which I agree with) seems to be: if the statistical likelyhood of the matches found is extremely low purely by chance GIVEN we take into account any "data manipulation" we do to match it, then it is a likely forgery. Basically we are saying: sure a match here and there proves nothing and is expected purely by chance, but if the number of matches we get is VASTLY higher than that expected by chance, then we have a problem. Also it would appear to me that it doesnt matter much what feature of the "reigns" you track for matches. It would seem that the most sensible features to track would be those that are least likely to have been altered (or just as many different features as you can track), which, if I was doing the plagiarism, would probably be the rough lengths of reigns (I might change numbers a little, but big changes might cause unforeseen problems with plausibility, so wouldn't mess with it too much...




AHA FOUND IT (or maybe not, but at least heres some more info)
wow look at these matches...(please comment on errors noted guys)
www.revisedhistory.org...
www.revisedhistory.org...
www.revisedhistory.org...

www.revisedhistory.org...

still cant find the more detailed version of this I remember seeing, with much more info on matched historical figures



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
But I do see evidence that he's wrong. For instance, there's a copy of Tacitus that dates to 850 in the Vatican library (so that would make some of his assumptions wrong. I don't know if you're in the mood to read a mildly long-ish web page, but there's a superb answer here about the Tacitus: answers.google.com...


interesting. I had a look through and lo and behold:

"From here to the Italian Renaissance, with its re-awakening of
interest in the ancient authors, there are few mentions of Tacitus in
Western literature. As Moses Hadas stated in the preface to my copy
of the collected works, "From the fifth century to the fifteenth, he
is mentioned not more than two or three times." (Page xxii, see below
for full citation)"

I find this interesting since apparently this period (5-15th) is one of the "forged periods" or what ever you want to call them....(Im just saying)

(EDIT to add)
also this:
www.revisedhistory.org...

seems to be a pretty in depth look at some of it. (but I still havent found what im looking for...)



[edit on 4-4-2008 by diablomonic]



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Howdy Diablomonic and Byrd

Thanks Byrd for the detailed answer to the Fomenko ideas




(I might make a list at some stage of some I find plausable as coverups)


That might be useful

The Fomenko data is so bizzare and large it's hard to understand. You might want to make a seperate thread for that either here or (is there a history forum at ATS?)



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   
The problem is that the history is not as it was , and it does not matter if there is a certain organization or simply a certain king/pharaoh/prophet/scribe/historian was writing lies. It is impossible to combine histories of several self-oriented nations and make a perfect fit. Archeology might help, but when i discovered how a certain mega-falsifier created a whole culture out of the blue (and i ate in restaurant which was his house several times,without knowing it!!) it is not a solid proof also,as far as i see it. So when uncertainty of what happened meets ego of researches ,the compromises made eventually are not exactly truth.
The reason for it is us being human ,with all pluses and minuses. I would like to add that if ancient (2000yrs old) history can be trusted, even then people were arguing about what happened before them (say 3000 yrs ago).
And there might be a movement that is preserving its version of a history (due to benefits, hiding something or "information is power" thing) but even their "real" version might be just as wrong as the "public" one.
And about a "Fomenko" issue - i admit that i was for a certain time a fan of one of his predecessors, Velikovskiy. He was using a similar tactic of finding patterns. But then i thought - in 2000 yrs the new historians of his type can easily say that WW1 and WW2 are the same,due to tons of similarities, if it will fit their theory. So patterns are fine, but the truth might be even further then in "accepted" versions.



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Some patterns in history are "natural".

Peace followed by war, usually separated by a generation

Rise and decline of dynasties.Expansion and retraction of countries, empires and peoples. There are known qualities that affect the above in know ways.

Barbarians or violent tribes settling in an area and becoming soft and being taken over by another barbarian violent tribe.

Politics, religion also tend to be cyclical, liberal to conservative, fundamental to lapse, endless.

So there are cycles within history - but there are exceptions, and those are usually very noticable.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join