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: 4
15
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2011 @ 02:34 AM
link   
Book 2 is where he goes into the comparative chronologies like you see with that parallel chart of rulers above. This to me was the more interesting one because his mathematical argument against it being a chance coincidence seems rather unlikely to me to be wrong.

Book 1 is I think more about astronomy and trying to use astronomical references in books, on monuments, etc to date things. It's a weaker area for him to work in, because the source material is usually open to interpretation. As in you have to say...'this is supposed to be comet _____' or 'this is supposed to be the constellation ________' etc and then go from there to make conclusions about dating it.

The art history stuff...well obviously, when you have a picture to paint and you've got to fill in some details, you're going to do that. It was common to simply depict things as if they were contemporary. You might get the specific patron and his family worked into the picture even though it is depicting say, an event from the life of Jesus.

Although...that's more like how it went in the Renaissance. By conventional history, an enormous amount of Byzantine art was lost in prescribed Iconoclasm. A bit later the Mongols also made off with a lot, which, supposedly was all cataloged and mostly buried with Genghis Khan! They did, by most reports, spare both art objects and craftsmen.

But I'm not an expert on this Fomenko guy or anything, I just perused some of his stuff for a couple of evenings a few years ago. I'd have to take another look at the art history based arguments to see where he goes with them.

In general, it'd be more convincing to find a future object showing up before it should than a jumbled depiction of the past(relative to when an artwork is supposed to have been made, of course).




posted on May, 9 2011 @ 06:50 AM
link   
I don't think that it has a strong base at all. I mean...well History itself doesnt have a strong base....



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Maddogkull
[more

\
/ history is indded a lie

it was written by the conquerors

much of the ancient wisdom has been lost that was once handed down threw the ages buy word of mouth

much of what we know as superstition was once the greatest religion of the land

it kept us intune with nature and the planet we took care of the planet then but not now.......if we do not wake up to what we once knew.....mother earth will destroy us



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 01:17 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.

And those Egyptian Kind lists.....It has been found that they were not all consecutive, many of them were co-rulerships. This alone has, so far, cut some 300 years off the time line.
Likewise for those "dark ages".

I have 3 of the 7 Fomenko books.
I find much of it very plausable. HIs charts of parallel rulers from different time periods is a big convincer that many of the older ones were made up copies of more current events.

He shows copies of dated records where the dates were listed such as: i450 or j515 etc. The prefilx letters subsequently became interpreted as number 1. So, if even this is correct our dating system is off by 1000 years., and so this is only year 1010. This then also lends credence to his contention that stories were made up to fill the gap.

Here is an article on the problem of dating history:
www.revisedhistory.org...

There are also other interesting articles on this site. One is one the Egyptian zodiacs.

He loses me completely when he tries to pin the events of Jesus onto one of the popes as well as onto a King (forgetting the names at the moment). I don't think he said anywhere what his religious beliefs were, but since I believe that the Jesus story is a copy of ancient legend, I can't go along with his co-respondences. Maybe he is Christian and therefor just has to put Jesus somewhere.





Ok, so basically this is just your emotions on this issue and you have no legitimate rational thoughts?

I think Fomenko has fallen victim to the concept of SSDD. Generation after generation of humans making the same mistakes in similar ways.

Look at our own history and how many Presidents could be made to seem like the same person? The thing is there is only so many possible patterns, that some patterns will just keep repeating themselves. Even though we like to think of ourselves as thinking creatures, we are still biological animals/mammals. And as such our instincts play a very large role in our supposedly "sentient" thinking process.

Being surprised about human history is like being surprised that squirrels hunt for nuts and acorns and surprise at how birds build their nest's. To think we are above biological programing(instinct) is arrogant.

Heck there is growing evidence that we Homo Sapiens Sapiens are a hybrid species(hence why we are so messed up) and if that is true then our dysfunctional behavior is all but certain.

Doomed to keep repeating the same dumb mistakes like a hybrid bird that doesn't know if it should hold material to build a nest in it's claws or on it's rump.




top topics
 
15
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join