Could history before the 16th Century be a big hoax?

[Scepcop]

This is interesting and thought provoking.

The Antimatter Radio Show 5-12-10. http://www.AntimatterRadio.com. Host: Jeffrey Grupp. THE HOAX OF HISTORY! History does not exist! Work of Antoly Fomenko, Russian Mathematics professor, and author of History: Fiction or Science?

Part 1 of 6:


Other videos about this topic:














Has history been tampered with? The documented history of human civilization is supposed to reach several millennia back into the past.
And yet if we consider the rate at which civilization is supposed to have progressed, we encounter periods of obscurity and informational vacuum following the alleged decline of every ancient empire, and then everything starts anew. Inventions are presumed lost for centuries, then re-invented by people whose names bear suspicious semblance to those of the ancient inventors. Just how true all of this is? Could history as we know it really be a collation of several chronicles relating to one and the same period of time?

Apparently, this is what the Russian mathematician Anatoly Fomenko claims. He is the author of the first volume in a series of seven that came out in English recently, and generated incredible controversy amongst professional historians worldwide. Many are trying to put the author into one league with numerous paranoid conspiracy theorists and mad inventors - however, all of his work conforms to the highest academic standards and is backed by solid scientific facts; furthermore, some of the most lucid minds of our time support many of the theories put forward by the authors. Garry Kasparov, the world chess champion, says the following in his preface to volume 1:

"Let us consider the factor of a mass character that I shall be referring to as psychophysical. Documented history tells us of the insatiable need of human beings to make discoveries. The vector of technological progress is a strictly vertical one. Every ten years something happens: discoveries, sea voyages, explosions... Everything keeps on changing, we see constant evolution - from Columbus to the landing on the Moon, from crossbows to nuclear bombs. Forwards and upwards. However, the traditional ancient history tells us of periods when humanity apparently remained dormant for centuries - "ancient" Egypt, the mediaeval "Dark Ages" - whole epochs of utter stasis in human thinking. It appears that the inhabitants of ancient Egypt and Rome had a different genetic code, and couldn't be bothered about anything at all, so they froze in their development, the result being a total lack of innovative activity. At the same time, there had been prosperous ancient empires where those among homo sapiens who possessed penchants for arts and sciences could get plenty of opportunities for growth and development. But, alas and alack, all of the prosperous "ancient" empires had ceased their development at some point."

--------------------------------------------

Has history been tampered with? Did events and eras such as the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the Roman Empire , the Dark Ages, and the Renaissance, actually occur within a very different chronology from what we've been told? Yes, they certainly did! The history of humankind is both drastically shorter and dramatically different than generally presumed.
Why is it so? On one hand, it was usual custom to justify the claims to title and land by age and ancestry, and on the other the court historians knew only too well how to please their masters. The so called universal classic world history is a pack of intricate lies for all events prior to the 16th century. It's likely that nobody told you before, but
there is not a single piece of firm written evidence or artefact that is reliably and independently dated prior to the 11th century.
Naturally, after what you've learned in school and university, you will not easily believe that the classical history of ancient Rome, Greece, Asia, Egypt, China, Japan, India, etc., is manifestly false.

You will point accusing finger to the pyramids in Egypt, to the Coliseum in Rome and Great Wall of China etc., and claim, aren't they really ancient, thousands of years ancient? Well, there is no valid scientific proof that they are older than 1000 years!

The oldest original written document that can be reliably dated belongs to the 11th century!

New research asserts that Homo sapiens invented writing (including hieroglyphics) only 1000 years ago. Once invented, writing skills were immediately and irreversibly put to the use of ruling powers and science.

The consensual chronology we live with was essentially crafted in the 16th century by Jesuits.

Early in life, we learn by heart the names and deeds of brave warriors, wise philosophers, fabulous pharaohs, cunning high priests and greedy scribes. We learn of gigantic pyramids and sinister castles, kings and queens, dukes and barons, powerful heroes and beautiful ladies, emaciated saints and low-life traitors. Dr debunks not merely the odd pillar, but the total, entire bastion of historical dating, proposing a 700 to 1000 year fictitious "add-on" section between 400 AD and 1100 AD (or larger) & argues that the conventional chronology sequence of almost EVERYTHING is erroneous.
Even if partially true this would be scary stuff.
Forget forbidden archeology which is for kindergarten....

[Arouet]

Scepcop, what do you think about it?

[caniswalensis]

Yes, everything is a hoax. All of it.

history
911
the moon landings
western medicine
baby ducklings
Walmart
Shields & Yarnell
Louis Pasteur
continental drift
continents
the sun
David Icke
John Wayne
magnets
ice
hippies
hot & sour soup
jet planes
Jefferson Airplane
Atlantis the lost continent
Altantis Resorts
Austria
America's Got Talent
peanut butter
the great wall of china
computers
Rush Limbaugh
Indian burns
comfy slippers
the ocean
band-aids
permanent markers
light switches
people that say "ah-ha"
cats
rhomboids
etc.

....all hoaxes!

[NinjaPuppy]

But I LOVE permanant markers. They can't be a hoax because they smell soooooo good.

[caniswalensis]

But I LOVE permanant markers. They can't be a hoax because they smell soooooo good.

That's the hoax part! You are really sniffing powerful psychotropic drugs that make all the fake history seem real to you.

[NinjaPuppy]

But I LOVE permanant markers. They can't be a hoax because they smell soooooo good.

That's the hoax part! You are really sniffing powerful psychotropic drugs that make all the fake history seem real to you.

Well then, it all makes sense now.

[Arouet]

I kinda wish permanent markers didn't exist. Given how my kids always seem to find them no matter where we put them.

I can confirm, they are indeed permanent (until I paint over it I guess!)

[NinjaPuppy]

I kinda wish permanent markers didn't exist. Given how my kids always seem to find them no matter where we put them.

I can confirm, they are indeed permanent (until I paint over it I guess!)

Too bad the ancients didn't let their kids record history with those markers.

[Scepcop]

Scepcop, what do you think about it?

Thanks for asking me rather than assuming that I endorse every alternative theory out there.

I don't know. I found this topic on YouTube and on the AntiMatter Radio Show with Jeffrey Grupp. The founder of this theory is supposed to be a mathematics genius from Moscow State University. He has written telephone sized books about it which you can get from Amazon.com. The readers on Amazon said that he does make a compelling case, though they are not sure that everything he says is correct. The thing is, he claims to base his claims on real serious scientific analysis, which historians do not usually do.

Here is his first volume of work:

History: Fiction or Science?
http://www.amazon.com/History-mathemati ... =8-1-spell

Review

Earth was flat. Humans saw that it was flat, books were telling scholars that it was flat, teachers were teaching students it was flat; scientists knew it was flat. There was some disagreement about the way it was kept afloat, most common versions were elephants, whales and turtles, but that was subject for scientific discussion. Until Magellan sailed around the globe and proved all this science wrong. This book is precisely about same situation. Although it is written for casual reader, it still bears all the traits of scientific research. Anyway, history as a science is based on books written by previous generation of historians, who based their works on works of previous generation of historians, supplemented by archeological digs (great deal of assumptions was made there too, as people didn't usually mark their belongings with dates), so it definitely needs some mathematical treatment. It is very difficult to digest the new version of history from Fomenko without getting allergic shock. Official timeline is accepted in the same way as gravity, and movement of the sun; many nations have developed their identity based on official history. Literally speaking chronology is in our culture, in our roots, personal identity. Someone said here that this book was written by Russian nationalist to reassure Russian national identity. May be so, but I think for Russians will be very difficult to swallow that they were actually Mongols and Tatars too. This book will turn your world upside down. Literally. --New Book Review, 03-03-2007 (CA, USA)

History: Fiction Or Science? is a quite scholarly expose of the extreme limitations of our understanding of human history. So few physical records have survived hundreds, let alone thousands of years that it casts even the most conventional understanding of what really happened into doubt. Chapters address the problems of historical chronology in general, astronomical datings, astronomy in the Old Testament, methods of dating ancient events via mathematical statistics, the construction of a global chronological map, the Dark Ages, and much more. Black-and-white illustrations add a vivid touch to this scholarly work that may appear controversial yet deals with a very serious issue directly affecting humanity's comprehension of its own past. --Midwest Book Review (Oregon, WI USA)

Product Description

History: Fiction or Science? is the most explosive tractate on history ever written - however, every theory it contains, no matter how unorthodox, is backed by solid scientific data. The book is well-illustrated, contains over 446 graphs and illustrations, copies of ancient manuscripts, and countless facts attesting to the falsity of the chronology used nowadays, which never cease to amaze the reader. Eminent mathematician proves that: Jesus Christ was born in 1153 and crucified in 1186 The Old Testament refers to mediaeval events. Apocalypse was written after 1486. Does this sound uncanny? This version of events is substantiated by hard facts and logic - validated by new astronomical research and statistical analysis of ancient sources - to a greater extent than everything you may have read and heard about history before. The dominating historical discourse in its current state was essentially crafted in the XVI century from a rather contradictory jumble of sources such as innumerable copies of ancient Latin and Greek manuscripts whose originals had vanished in the Dark Ages and the allegedly irrefutable proof offered by late mediaeval astronomers, resting upon the power of ecclesial authorities. Nearly all of its components are blatantly untrue! For some of us, it shall possibly be quite disturbing to see the magnificent edifice of classical history to turn into an ominous simulacrum brooding over the snake pit of mediaeval politics. Twice so, in fact: the first seeing the legendary millenarian dust on the ancient marble turn into a mere layer of dirt - one that meticulous unprejudiced research can eventually remove. The second, and greater, attack of unease comes with the awareness of just how many areas of human knowledge still trust the three elephants of the consensual chronology to support them. Nothing can remedy that except for an individual chronological revolution happening in the minds of a large enough number of people.

Now, as to what I think. I don't know. How could I? What do you think I am? I don't judge or come to quick conclusions about everything. Listen dude. Truth is not handed to you on a silver platter. Don't you know that? It's something you gotta DIG for, and even then, you will only get fragments of it. The problem is that you skeptics assume that truth is handed to you on a silver platter, and that truth is simply whatever the official version told to us is. That's simply not true. Agreed?

We all know that history is the propaganda of the victorious. It's very easy for the powers to manipulate history to fit their agenda of things. I'm sure you know that right?

Therefore, it's smart to question things, even cherished beliefs. When you do, you often find that the official version of things is often not the truth. That is the disturbing but liberating realization that you come to eventually.

There's a reason, doc, why society is set up so that you don't have much free time. In your youth, school keeps you busy. In your adult life, work keeps you busy. In your spare time, the mainstream media holds your attention with the official version of things. The reason for all this is that if you have too much free time to think about everything, eventually you realize that you are a slave on a prison planet and that most of what you are told are hogwash, lies and gross distortions. That's the scary part, that when you have too much free time, you discover a lot of disturbing things, not just in terms of conspiracies, but about the state of existence itself. We are kept from all that by society that keeps us busy and distracted.

That's what I've learned and what I've discovered anyway. Sorry if that sounds wacky. I'm just being honest about it.

Bottom line: The stuff I posted here is just something to consider and contemplate. If you don't agree with it, then fine. But dismiss it for good logical reasons, not simply because it contradicts the official version of things.

One more thing: Skeptics seem to have a double standard when it comes to evidence. When evidence supports the official version of things, it is accepted and counted. But when it doesn't, then it is dismissed and labeled as "nonexistent or invalid", to justify their "no evidence exists to support any alternative hypothesis other than the official one" claim of skeptics.

But of course, we all have biases and tend to be selective in what evidence we will accept in accord with how well it fits into our beliefs and views (aka confirmation bias). That's human nature. It's just that skeptics tend to be more rigid about it than the average person is.

[Scepcop]

I kinda wish permanent markers didn't exist. Given how my kids always seem to find them no matter where we put them.

I can confirm, they are indeed permanent (until I paint over it I guess!)

It depends on what surface you write on. If you write with them on your hand, they are not permanent. Eventually the mark fades from your skin.

[Scepcop]

A great point made on my other forum:

http://www.happierabroad.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9196

I've never trusted skeptics, for the very reason that they are willing to accept the official version of things without a shred of proof but require unrealistic amounts of evidence to accept any other possibility.

I find it interesting that one of the reviews says forget "Forbidden Archaeology", which is interesting because that book goes in the very opposite direction make history much much longer than previously imagined and showing possibly great advancements in millennia old societies.

I am always curious about history, and it is not hard for me to imagine that it could all fall apart with a single discovery.

[Arouet]

Scepcop, what do you think about it?

Thanks for asking me rather than assuming that I endorse every alternative theory out there.

Part of the problem here is that when you post a link you rarely offer your opinion. I get to some extent that it can be good to present a hypothesis for discussion, let people form their own opinions, then give your opinion after. But the problem is, some of us will go through something, dissect it, and your only response is: you just accept the official position on everything!

I don't know. I found this topic on YouTube and on the AntiMatter Radio Show with Jeffrey Grupp. The founder of this theory is supposed to be a mathematics genius from Moscow State University. He has written telephone sized books about it which you can get from Amazon.com. The readers on Amazon said that he does make a compelling case, though they are not sure that everything he says is correct. The thing is, he claims to base his claims on real serious scientific analysis, which historians do not usually do.

Ok, so, I know nothing about this guy other than what you've posted in this thread (the written stuff, I've only glanced at a minute or so of the video stuff). But I can obviously tell that this guy is a long wolf. He's got a hypothesis which contradicts thousands upon thousands of historical research, over centuries. He has a radical idea which flies in the face of everything that we know to date.

If I know nothing else about this issue other than that: how should I set the odds on this guy having a highly probable position? Remember, we're not talking about certainty here. I would argue that in itself, that should put us in the position of applying a great deal of skepticism to his position.

It is trite to say that we will never know if the histories being presented are completely accurate. In fact, it is a near certainty that they are not, for a myriad of reasons, only one being that "history is written by the victor". But no historian will claim to deal in certainties. They deal in probabilities. The more independant sources confiming a historical event, the closer to 1 we can say the probability of that event has occurred.

This is how I approach this work.

Review
Earth was flat. Humans saw that it was flat, books were telling scholars that it was flat, teachers were teaching students it was flat; scientists knew it was flat. There was some disagreement about the way it was kept afloat, most common versions were elephants, whales and turtles, but that was subject for scientific discussion.

I'm not going to go through that review: but this is incorrect. People knew the earth was round long before the european explorers set sail. The ancient greeks knew it was round. It is a myth that everyone thought it was flat.

Now, as to what I think. I don't know. How could I? What do you think I am? I don't judge or come to quick conclusions about everything. Listen dude. Truth is not handed to you on a silver platter. Don't you know that? It's something you gotta DIG for, and even then, you will only get fragments of it. The problem is that you skeptics assume that truth is handed to you on a silver platter, and that truth is simply whatever the official version told to us is. That's simply not true. Agreed?

Ummmm, no, I don't agree. First, I don't know what "the official version" even means. I still haven't been given a good argument to assume it exists at all. Well, individual "official" positions such as a government position. But when it comes to history, science, literature, and any other area of study, we're talking about thousands upon thousands of different people, studying in different ways, focusing on different things. Talking about the "official version" in that context is simply nonsense.

What you can talk about is consensus. And when we say consensus we mean that again many different experts from across the board agree that a certain hypothesis has a high degree of confidence at the time. We don't say that the consensus is "right" - we say that it is the best we can do given the knowledge we have. A consensus is the result of a tremendous amount of work being done -again by different people around the world sometimes. Consensus' are subject to change as more research is done and what was a consensus yesterday may not be the consensus today. But as a lay person, who can't become a master of 1000s of different scientific fields, we must be very cautious about ascribing a high degree of confidence to a point of view that radically disagrees with the consensus. That's not to say that its impossible - consensus' do change after all - but we must consider it to be unlikely.

In this case, we know about a plethora of evidence dating documents to well before the middle ages. That alone must cause us great skepticism.

We all know that history is the propaganda of the victorious. It's very easy for the powers to manipulate history to fit their agenda of things. I'm sure you know that right?

Sure, but like I said above, this view is simplistic.

Therefore, it's smart to question things, even cherished beliefs. When you do, you often find that the official version of things is often not the truth. That is the disturbing but liberating realization that you come to eventually.

Of course its smart to question things, including cherished beliefs (I don't have too many cherished beleifs myself). The question is: how do we go about determining that? I fear that at times you assign too much weight to the lone wolf. In fact, the loner the wolf, the more credibility you assign him. How do you justify that?

There's a reason, doc, why society is set up so that you don't have much free time. In your youth, school keeps you busy. In your adult life, work keeps you busy. In your spare time, the mainstream media holds your attention with the official version of things. The reason for all this is that if you have too much free time to think about everything, eventually you realize that you are a slave on a prison planet and that most of what you are told are hogwash, lies and gross distortions. That's the scary part, that when you have too much free time, you discover a lot of disturbing things, not just in terms of conspiracies, but about the state of existence itself. We are kept from all that by society that keeps us busy and distracted.

This is nonsense, with all due respect. We have plenty of time to reflect on things. This forum is proof of that.

That's what I've learned and what I've discovered anyway. Sorry if that sounds wacky. I'm just being honest about it.

I just don't know if you have a system for evaluating claimis: how do you assign confidence to a hypothesis?

Bottom line: The stuff I posted here is just something to consider and contemplate. If you don't agree with it, then fine. But dismiss it for good logical reasons, not simply because it contradicts the official version of things.

That's fine. I mean, its sort of fun to consider these things. It's not just that this guy contradicts the official version of things, he pretty well contradicts EVERY version of things!

One more thing: Skeptics seem to have a double standard when it comes to evidence. When evidence supports the official version of things, it is accepted and counted. But when it doesn't, then it is dismissed and labeled as "nonexistent or invalid", to justify their "no evidence exists to support any alternative hypothesis other than the official one" claim of skeptics.

This is just plain wrong. Sure we all have our biases, and must struggle to overcome them, but I don't see evidence of blind acceptance or rejection, at least not by the leaders of the skeptic movement. Sure there may be some self-described skeptics who do that, just like there are others who don't think critically, but I haven't seen much of that. You keep on claiming that you have, but I've never seen you provide a specific example.

But of course, we all have biases and tend to be selective in what evidence we will accept in accord with how well it fits into our beliefs and views (aka confirmation bias). That's human nature. It's just that skeptics tend to be more rigid about it than the average person is.

I disagree. Skeptics strive to overcome bias. It's what defines us as skeptics.

[derrida]

It's likely that nobody told you before, but
there is not a single piece of firm written evidence or artefact that is reliably and independently dated prior to the 11th century.

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?!!?!?!??!?!?!
scescop!! stop ¨learning¨ thru youtube
Do you know what the GILGAMESH is!?!??!
have you ever been to a museum and saw all the ancient coins!??!

that dumbass might be implying that before gutemberg´s print we got no book
but we did!.. didnt you know we had lybraries?.. the great lybrary of alexandria?
a quick google search and i found this
http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/educator/modu ... erg/books/

Books Before and After The Gutenberg Bible
For approximately 4,500 years before Gutenberg invented the printing press, books were produced by hand. They were written on surfaces of clay, papyrus, wax, and parchment. Law books, cookbooks, works of philosophy and science, great comedies and tragedies were all painstakingly copied and all too often lost through war and neglect. The invention of movable type and the printing of the Gutenberg Bible, however, completely revolutionized the accessibility of knowledge in the Western World.

that russian ¨scientist¨ is full of bs

[Craig Browning]

Ok... where did my post go on this thread?

I know I made a rather lengthy post... the first one on this subject, in fact.

[Arouet]

Ok... where did my post go on this thread?

I know I made a rather lengthy post... the first one on this subject, in fact.

If someone made a post while you were writing your post, it doesn't post your post but asks you if you want to read the other post before posting. That may be what happened. Bugs me too!