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.

 

Is all of history a LIE??

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
like seeing one white horse here in Texas and anther white horse in Kentucky and assuming that they're clones manufactured by Dupont Industries.


You know about them too?


 

As for the thread topic, I am sure that there are misrepresentations in our historical record but trying to assert a timeline based on the discrepancies of the old, or accepted, timeline is really just the application of another bias...

Interesting stuff though...




posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 07:40 AM
link   
There is only really one word for Fomenko's theory: bollocks.

It grows from a pathetic nationalism, a toxic force that distorts science and history. I think the link the OP made sums it up:



Well, that answer is quite simple. Fomenko is Russian, so it is not surprising that Fomenko "discovered" that Russia was the source of universal empire and that its culture gave rise to England. That explains his Byzantine chauvinism, for the Russian czars (= Caesars) saw themselves as the legitimate successors to the Byzantine emperors through the miracle of shared faith in the (then united) Orthodox Church. If England could be shown to "really" be Byzantium, then all the advances of England, and America, are "really" Byzantine and hence Russian. In other words, this elaborate theory is nothing more than an attempt to bolster the battered and broken shell of the formerly great Russian state, and to claim for Mother Russia a small piece of the reflected glory of a world that passed it by.


The only thing amazing about this "theory" is how long it has stayed in circulation, even if largely laughed at.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
Oh... and the Dendara Zodiacs aren't horoscopes. They are sky maps, but there's no planets there. In order to have a horoscope (I was at one time a professional astrologer... yes, really) you have to have planetary positions noted. Those are constellations only.


There are planets.
revisedhistory.org...
Captions of some of the illustrations:
"Figure 3: A drawing of the Long Denderah zodiac from the temple in Denderah in Egypt.5 Colour annotations were added to indicate constellations (red), planets (yellow), and other astronomical symbols (blue or green).

Figure 4: The Big Esna zodiac.6 The zodiac constellations are marked in red, the planets in yellow, and the other astronomical symbols in blue and green.

Figure 6: Decoded astronomical meaning of the Round Denderah zodiac. The zodiac constellations are marked in red, the planets in yellow, and the other astronomical symbols in blue and green.

In this representation, colours are used to distinguish figures of different astronomical meaning. The red figures are the zodiac constellations, which can be easily recognized because their appearance has remained largely unchanged to present times. The yellow figures are the planets. Some are marked by hieroglyphic inscriptions, but it is generally not an easy task to determine exactly which planets are represented by these symbols.
...snip....
It was found that the figures shown on this zodiac indicate that: the moon was in Libra; Saturn was in either Virgo or Leo; Mars was in Capricorn; Jupiter was in either Cancer or Leo; Venus was in Aries; and Mercury and the sun were in Pisces."



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   
this whole theory seems incredibly western europe centric to me.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Maddogkull
 


Well we all know history is wrote by the winners, thats why gw bush is always smiling along with blair.

We only really know history is true, from the generations who are alive today. Anything before that time we get from books, and of course people could in theory write anything.

Like what the geezer from view from space radio says. If they bury something and then dig it up, they can easily pretend that this is from history as people want to believe it. But we have seen them trying to pass off forgeries to try and get evolution gone through the critics, but the missing links where always found to be false.

We are run by control freaks, so who is to say what about history is true. It is just a consensus reality and we accept it, but who knows for sure?



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   
It is not just Fomenko.
The are not all Russian.
Here is a site re Dark Ages Didn't Exist:

www.egodeath.com...

The translations leave a lot to be desired.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone
There are planets.
revisedhistory.org...
Captions of some of the illustrations:
"Figure 3: A drawing of the Long Denderah zodiac from the temple in Denderah in Egypt.5 Colour annotations were added to indicate constellations (red), planets (yellow), and other astronomical symbols (blue or green).

Figure 4: The Big Esna zodiac.6 The zodiac constellations are marked in red, the planets in yellow, and the other astronomical symbols in blue and green.

Figure 6: Decoded astronomical meaning of the Round Denderah zodiac. The zodiac constellations are marked in red, the planets in yellow, and the other astronomical symbols in blue and green.


I don't see any reliable (i.e. Egyptologists who can read the hieroglyphics) translations to prove that there are planets shown there in the sky, and the Internet images aren't good enough that I can attempt a bad translation. I see what appears to be the names of gods and so forth.

Do you have any links which show the translation of the texts that they're using? A "hey, here's a horoscope" site that doesn't show the ability to read ancient Egyptian is somewhat suspicious to me. Not saying it's NOT true... just that the evidence isn't there right now and I'd like to see something more concrete than highlighted figures that conveniently prove a thesis of the author's.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone
It is not just Fomenko.
The are not all Russian.
Here is a site re Dark Ages Didn't Exist:

www.egodeath.com...

The translations leave a lot to be desired.


Actually, he's using Fromenko's material. It still has the same problem... cherry picking a few things and ignoring a lot of other evidence.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Maddogkull
 


All history a lie? Howcome? Some of course may be, for example as history is often written by victorious who may have chosen to leave few unimportant facts unmentioned - but all? Nah. Yes, it is "his" "story". "His" referring to winner and also, quite cunningly when thinking in terms of feminism, referring to the fact that males pretty much have written our history.

But nah, I doubt that all history could be lie. The title of the thread is scandalaous as in a decent tabloid, and the content of the thread refers just to Fomenko.. How come that suddenly came "ALL"? Well then again, I guess it was the very title that draw my attention. On topic, there are plenty of documents that prove not "ALL" history is a lie, but as this is quite common knowledge, I omit from providing links.

-v
edit on 21-12-2010 by v01i0 because: 2345



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   
People on ATS believe everything is a lie. I've seen a bunch of threads with the same title, only substituting Science for History. I'd agree that History is distorted, but not a lie. Further reading of the link in the original post leads me to believe that this Fomenko is manipulating data. Oh well, guess we'll have to be agnostic when it comes to our past too.
edit on 21-12-2010 by Throwback because: Typo



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Basicly what Fomenko is saying is that history prior to the 1600's is unreliable, and he does show a lot of evidence for it. You have to read his books to see it. There are 7 volumes and they are big books.
The bibliography (part of his evidence) contains 1482 items.

This is the site selling Fomenko's books.
You can read excerpts and the Tables of Contents.
www.atlasbooks.com...

More folks are getting on the band wagon.
The Revision of Ancient History - A Perspective
www.sis-group.org.uk...

Now then how about some American History lies? Check this out.
www.redcoat.me.uk...



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by OhZone
 


Ok, then what happened before the 1600's? We just became civilized out of the blue in the 1600s? What is his opinion on what happened before the 1600's? He’s not explaining all sides of the story either.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maddogkull
What do you guys on ATS think of this? I personally think he is wrong, but he does have an excellent point in talking about how our dating methods are off. Do you think this guy has some valid points?


If history was only dated by astronomical alignments and events, then maybe he'd have a valid point in saying that some of the data was off. Unfortunately, we have tree rings and carbon dating and pot sherds and a lot of other unrelated ways of telling how old something is that tend to back each other up. The result is that we're pretty sure about most dates of things going back more than a few thousand years.

He sounds like a crackpot. A nice crackpot, but a crackpot none the less.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maddogkull
reply to post by OhZone
 


Ok, then what happened before the 1600's? We just became civilized out of the blue in the 1600s? What is his opinion on what happened before the 1600's? He’s not explaining all sides of the story either.


Printing had just been invented in the 1500's and as more people learned to read there came a demand for literature. History had a large following and there were lots of folks willing to do the writing. Manuscripts from earlier on were scarce. Events were described by different authors using different names of people and places for the same events. You really have to read the articles on revisedhistory.org... to get an understanding, as I cannot put it all here. There you will also see the "tree: charts showing the parallels that are apparently the same people in different time frames.

Fomenko alleges that we know little or nothing about events prior to the year 900 CE, and you have to read his evidence to understand this.

Having a Belief in the History that you have been taught in school is just that; a "Belief". Belief is not the same thing as Knowing.

You have of course, noticed that History is the story of the Rulers; Kings, Queens and Religious leaders. There is little or nothing about the common man. They owned us then as they own us now. We have been conditioned to belief whatever they tells us. You almost never get to hear the story of the losers of any war do you? And if you did you likely would not believe it. Your conditioning has been so strong.

As to his works being "Eurocentric".....why shouldn't they be?



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by Maddogkull
What do you guys on ATS think of this? I personally think he is wrong, but he does have an excellent point in talking about how our dating methods are off. Do you think this guy has some valid points?


If history was only dated by astronomical alignments and events, then maybe he'd have a valid point in saying that some of the data was off. Unfortunately, we have tree rings and carbon dating and pot sherds and a lot of other unrelated ways of telling how old something is that tend to back each other up. The result is that we're pretty sure about most dates of things going back more than a few thousand years.

He sounds like a crackpot. A nice crackpot, but a crackpot none the less.


Maybe you should read his works before judging them. To be fair don't you think that you should at least explore the links that I have provided? There is a wealth of information in them.

It is interesting that no one who is ridiculing Fomenko's ideas has provided one word of evidence to the contrary.

Carbon dating is totally fallible.

"Just try to submit to any c14 lab a sample of organic matter and ask them to date it. The lab will ask your idea of the age of the sample, then it fiddles with the lots of knobs (‘fine-tuning’) and gives you the result as you’ve ‘expected’. With c14 dating method being so mind bogglingly precise C14 labs decline making 'black box' test of any kind absolutely. Nah, they assert that because their method is SO very sensitive they must have maximum information about the sample. This much touted method often produces reliable dating of objects of organic origin with exactitude (mistakes that) of up to plus minus 1500 years, therefore it is too crude for dating of historical events in the 3000 years timeframe!" www.bookmasters.com...

Tree rings? Just how many 1000 year old trees exist?

If you just read the table of contents in Formenko's Volume III you will see that extensive work was done in the area of astro dating. www.bookmasters.com...



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 08:30 PM
link   
We create our own reality through our own desires and thoughts through unity with the Beloved, the ONE. So we can create our past as well. We expand. We create through our own desires. Because we are united. We are all part of the ONE. The Beloved is us.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Present history is a lie. It was already proven countless times, even here on ATS. My country's history is a pretty good example for it. Every history books of nowadays are telling that Hungarians are originating from the Finnish people, which is an outragoues lie. We're originating from somewhere else and we, Hungarians also know our history is more then 1000 year old (Actually more then 10000 years, which is, based on the present history, it's impossible.). Then when we say this, some religious fanatics always come and try to tell us, convince us, or worse, ridicule us and say, no, we know our very own history wrong, we're mistaken about our own history. And why? Because it's not fit into the present religious concepts or the world of some mentally ill psycho idiot. But what our answer is used to be; who the hell cares?

Everything is a lie on this world, a fabricated illusion. But it would be a good time to shatter this illusion once and for all.
edit on 23-12-2010 by Sentinel412 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 12:34 AM
link   
I am loving soaking up all the sources presented and I find myself on the fence, and falling on the side of the New Chronology.

But my big question that the sources have not answered yet and has been nagging at me is this; if there was an extension of a 1000 year gap made up (600-900AD) then how is it that the common folk don't remember any of it? I mean sure one could forget a lot in a 1000 year period only to be rediscovered, but according to this theory, I mean it's like yesterday (i.e. today, while the 1800s was a long time ago in a human lifespan sense, it wasn't that long ago to still persist as common knowledge passed down by a great great grandparent) so did the common man not hear tales from his grandfather or something?



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by OhZone
 


You are right with the carbon dating, but you are wrong about the trees. There are trees that are over 80,000 years old as a community. They can tell that they are over 80,000 years old just by looking at how deep the roots go down into the ground by GIS, Remote Sensing ect.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone
As to those family histories.....
Only the royals kept records of family members, and it would be to their advantage to add several generations to show the masses that they had a long history of being Kings.


Just picking up on this point about family records, it's not true at all that only royalty kept family history records, many family have family bibles that record births deaths and marriages, parish churches also kept detailed records, its also fairly easy to use court assize records and many other sources to trace families back. Using Parish records and family records I was able to trace my family back to 1510 without much effort at all, I was able to find out their jobs, any crimes they had committed and sundry other facts like membership of local militias etc.

I know a lot of other people that have been able to get back even further and several that were able to get back to William the Conquer c1066. The Domesday Book even lists trees that are still with us and datable.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join