Anatoly Fomenko: False Chonology

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Anatoly Fomenko: False Chonology

Unread postby allynh » Wed Feb 01, 2017 9:17 pm

'you are not a historian. just a very silly boy'.

I completely concur with that comment, and am proud of it on all counts. HA!

To begin answering as to why no one in the past three hundred years "published" the observations about the false history, you need to look at society, especially its laws in those centuries.

I was born in 1956, in small town America. As kids we were told, "Do not discuss religion." The reason was not because it was impolite, it was because the adults grew up in a society that had blasphemy laws. You could literally be arrested, sent to prison, for discussing the things in Fomenko's books. In my lifetime those laws have been taken off the books, but society still has the taboo of pointing out that recorded history is simply religious dogma.

It will take another generation, and private funding, before Professors in University can begin to broach this subject. You cannot become a tenured Professor if you do not promote the religious dogma of consensus history. You cannot remain a tenured Professor if you start trying to challenge that dogma; funding will dry up, and you will be forced out. The limits on challenging the dogma are in place and crippling, because no one will pay attention to your work if you are not part of the system. You can go to Amazon and find tons of books on alternate history, all are ignored by University, by "real" historians.

You say that you have read thousands of history books. Each of those books was required to stay within the religious dogma or they would not only have not been published, but the author would be fired, sent to prison.

I look at the local University that I went to in the 70s. They brag about having millions of books in the library. When people argue that all those books can't be wrong, I need to point out an odd fact. All those books are modern. None of them are "original texts." They were all written and published in the past century at best, the past 150 years at most. All written by people following the law, knowing their limits.

Take any book on history that you love; when was it published. Look at the bibliography in the back of the book. Find the prime books that were used as resources by the current book; when were they published. Follow the path back, book by book. As you look back in time, you will find a "great forgetting." If you read those books, you will see all of the concepts and ideas that you love vanish the older the books you read. If you try to find those great concepts, their origin, you discover that they were simply invented along the way with no actual basis in reality.

Another data point. Here in the US if you look back a century at a time, the number of Universities and their libraries rapidly vanish. It was just a moment ago that there were only three Universities in the US; Harvard, Yale, William & Mary. They were built using slaveholder money to be a place that slaveholders could send their sons for education, instead of the risk of sending them to Europe where they might be corrupted away from owning slaves. Their three libraries combined held fewer books than my home library has. So when people say, "Look at all the history books, how can they all be wrong," I point out that the books that you read today are modern and subject to the laws limiting what could be published at the time.

Remember as well, until the 20th century most Universities were religious. Non-religious based Universities are a recent phenomenon, but each still had to follow blasphemy laws or lose their charter.

An odd note:

What we know of religion today is all due more to Hollywood films than to the actual religions. If Hollywood had not created all those great movies to inspire people, most churches would have dried up; been abandoned.

As I said above, Fomenko makes his point. All the technical questions you asked are addressed, point-by-point, in his books. Read them, and all of your technical questions will be answered. It's not my job to read the books for you, and be forced to paraphrase or defend something that you can more easily read yourself. Especially when all you will do is knock down what I paraphrase and never look at Fomenko's actual statements.

If my answer is not enough to get you started, then I must once again refer you to the beautiful Monty Python sketch.
allynh
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Anatoly Fomenko: False Chonology

Unread postby perpetual motion » Wed Feb 01, 2017 9:54 pm

This may not be correct, but years ago I read through and heard through the GRAPE VINE that most
history books were rewritten by Harvard Scholar's back in the early 1920's and that they were paid
good monies by some group of people of high standards.
Just a little tidbit here.
perpetual motion
 
Posts: 137
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:04 pm

Re: Anatoly Fomenko: False Chonology

Unread postby john666 » Thu Feb 02, 2017 1:16 am

Fomenko says that Jesus Christ was born in Eastern Europe.

I agree with this because of my private research.

Some people would say, this cannot be, Jesus was born in the Middle East, EVERYBODY KNOWS THIS 8-)

But I would urge EVERYBODY to use some common sense.
Europeans in the past were very racist, as evidenced in the history of colonialism.
In the light of this FACT how is it possible that Europeans accepted as their "Savior" a NON- EUROPEAN?

It is not possible at all.

And lets not forget that Christianity spread from Europe, not the Middle East.

Other forum members have said about the relative youth of our "history books".
I agree with this.

What is most troubling about our "historical perspective" is that we do not have A REFERENCE POINT.
Meaning, our present should be our REFERENCE POINT, and from that point we should slowly go "downwards".
Meaning in our societies we should first establish WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY what happened 10 years ago, then after that we should establish WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY what happened 20 years ago, then after that we should establish WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY what happened 30 years ago, and so on and so forth...

But that is not the case.
How do we now that is not the case?
Because of the abundance of "conspiracy theories" about the various historical events.

History of the world is a simulacrum.
john666
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 7:59 am

Re: Anatoly Fomenko: False Chonology

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Thu Feb 02, 2017 5:12 am

I hate to break it to you Americans but there is a whole world outside America. Your parochial experience doesn't necessarily reflect the experience of non-America.

Try reading the history of History and you will see that that theories come and go based on the introduction of new evidence, e.g. source documents.

Scalinger had Latin, Greek, Hebrew and Arabic. Does Fomenko?
Scalinger was a Protestant during the wars of the Counter-Reformation, why would he 'big-up' Rome?
Scalinger would have had access to only a miniscule amount of ancient texts. No cuneiform libraries had been discovered in his day; cuneiform was undeciphered; Egyptian hieroglyphs were undeciphered; no Nag Hammadi library; no Dead Sea Scrolls; no Amarna correspondence; next to no Plato; only largely corrupt versions of Aristotle; no sanskrit texts; no archaeology digs; next to nothing known about C and S American civilisations.

Try reading the history, classics and archaeology journals. They are full of debate about the interpretation of evidence.

Fomenko claims that Plato, Plotinus and Pletho are one and the same person. All three have substantial biographies provided by their contemporaries who themselves are well-documented persons. The three are not even from the same countries.

Here is a quick example of how the views of historians change.
For several centuries after the Protestant Reformation, Neo-Platonism was condemned as a decadent and 'oriental' distortion of Platonism. In a famous 1929 essay, E. R. Dodds showed that key conceptions of Neo-Platonism could be traced from their origin in Plato's dialogues, through his immediate followers (e.g., Speusippus) and the Neo-Pythagoreans, to Plotinus and the Neo-Platonists. Thus Plotinus' philosophy was, he argued, 'not the starting-point of Neo-Platonism but its intellectual culmination.'[12] Further research reinforced this view and by 1954 Merlan could say 'The present tendency is toward bridging rather than widening the gap separating Platonism from Neo-Platonism.'[13]

Since the 1950s, the Tübingen School of Plato interpretation has argued that the so-called 'unwritten doctrines' of Plato debated by Aristotle and the Early Academy strongly resemble Plotinus's metaphysics. In this case, the Neo-Platonic reading of Plato would be, at least in this central area, historically justified. This implies that Neo-Platonism is less of an innovation than it appears without the recognition of Plato's unwritten doctrines. Advocates of the Tübingen School emphasize this advantage of their interpretation. They see Plotinus as advancing a tradition of thought begun by Plato himself. Plotinus's metaphysics, at least in broad outline, was therefore already familiar to the first generation of Plato's students. This confirms Plotinus' own view, for he considered himself not the inventor of a system but the faithful interpreter of Plato's doctrines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plotinus
Thomas Taylor had argued much the same a century earlier. As an aside, anyone with a bit of knowledge of Vedanta and the Upanishads can see that the above connection between Plato and the Neo-Platonists is true.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Anatoly Fomenko: False Chonology

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Thu Feb 02, 2017 3:18 pm

Fomenko is barking mad. I wish I could copy and paste from his books.

Fomenko:
One has to mark the use of the term "tyrant". The tyrants were a particular clan of "ancient" Greek rulers, Candaules being one of them.
The word "tyrant" gives us TRNT (TRN) as its unvocalized root; basically, Herodotus is telling us about either the Trojans (TRN), the Tarquins (TRQN), or the mediaeval TRN - the Franks, the Turks and the Tartars.

1. The tyrants were not a clan.
A tyrant (Greek τύραννος, tyrannos), in its modern English usage, is an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or person, or one who has usurped legitimate sovereignty. Often described as a cruel character, a tyrant defends his position by oppressive means, tending to control almost everything in the state.[1][2] The original Greek term, however, merely meant an authoritarian sovereign without reference to character,[3] bearing no pejorative connotation during the Archaic and early Classical periods. However, it was clearly a negative word to Plato, a Greek philosopher, and on account of the decisive influence of philosophy on politics, its negative connotations only increased, continuing into the Hellenistic period.
Plato and Aristotle define a tyrant as "one who rules without law, and uses extreme and cruel tactics—against his own people as well as others".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrant
Note the Greek does not give us TRN.

2. Candaules or Myrsilos was a Lydian not a Greek.

3. Herodotus wrote in Greek so he would not be using the Latin script (TRN). In any case (if he was mediaeval), mediaeval Latin used vowels.
Troy (Ancient Greek: Τροία, Troia and Ἴλιον, Ilion, or Ἴλιος, Ilios; Latin: Trōia and Īlium...)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy
Note the Greek does not give us TRN and is nothing like the Greek word for tyrant.

Fomenko:
The actual name "Hohenstaufen" is very similar to that of king Hugo, the key figure in the duplicate of the Trojan War that was dated to the X century A.D. Now the word "Hohen" or "Hugo" is similar to that of the well-known mediaeval nation of Gog (as in Gog and Magog), which is how the Tartars and the Scythians were called in the Middle Ages.

1.
The name "Hohenstaufen", meaning "high Staufen", originates in the 14th century, when it was first used to distinguish the conical hill named Staufen in the Swabian Jura, in the district of Göppingen, from the village of the same name in the valley below. The name "Staufen" derives from Stauf (formerly stouf), meaning "chalice", and was commonly applied to conical hills in Swabia in the Middle Ages. The family derives its name from the castle which the first Swabian duke of the lineage built there in the latter half of the 11th century. Staufen castle was only finally called Hohenstaufen by historians in the 19th century, to distinguish it from other castles of the same name. The name of the dynasty followed, but in recent decades the trend in German historiography has been to prefer the name Staufer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohenstaufen

2. Try googling "Gog" and see how 'well-known' it is.

It only takes a matter of minutes to check Fomenko's 'facts'.
As I wrote previously, these sort of books are aimed at the gullible and ignorant.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Anatoly Fomenko: False Chonology

Unread postby john666 » Thu Feb 02, 2017 8:42 pm

Let me give to everyone an example of "historical sources", that are according to Grey Cloud absolutely credible
because the "historical sources" cannot be made by liars;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

The September 11 attacks (also referred to as 9/11)[nb 1] were a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks by the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda on the United States on the morning of Tuesday, September 11, 2001. The attacks killed 2,996 people, injured over 6,000 others, and caused at least $10 billion in property and infrastructure damage[2][3] and $3 trillion in total costs.[4]

Four passenger airliners operated by two major U.S. passenger air carriers (United Airlines and American Airlines) — all of which departed from airports on the northeastern United States bound for California — were hijacked by 19 al-Qaeda terrorists. Two of the planes, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175, were crashed into the North and South towers, respectively, of the World Trade Center complex in New York City. Within an hour and 42 minutes, both 110-story towers collapsed, with debris and the resulting fires causing partial or complete collapse of all other buildings in the World Trade Center complex, including the 47-story 7 World Trade Center tower, as well as significant damage to ten other large surrounding structures. A third plane, American Airlines Flight 77, was crashed into the Pentagon (the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense) in Arlington County, Virginia, leading to a partial collapse of the building's western side. The fourth plane, United Airlines Flight 93, initially was steered toward Washington, D.C., but crashed into a field in Stonycreek Township near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, after its passengers tried to overcome the hijackers. It was the deadliest incident for firefighters and law enforcement officers[5] in the history of the United States, with 343 and 72 killed respectively.

Suspicion for the attack quickly fell on al-Qaeda. The United States responded to the attacks by launching the War on Terror and invading Afghanistan to depose the Taliban, which had harbored al-Qaeda. Many countries strengthened their anti-terrorism legislation and expanded the powers of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to prevent terrorist attacks. Although al-Qaeda's leader, Osama bin Laden, initially denied any involvement, in 2004 he claimed responsibility for the attacks.[1] Al-Qaeda and bin Laden cited U.S. support of Israel, the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, and sanctions against Iraq as motives. Having evaded capture for almost a decade, bin Laden was located and killed by SEAL Team Six of the U.S. Navy in May 2011.
john666
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 7:59 am

Re: Anatoly Fomenko: False Chonology

Unread postby allynh » Thu Feb 02, 2017 10:31 pm

Sorry, john666, but let's hold off on 911 stuff for now, and focus on the Fomenko books.

Thanks...

Grey Cloud,

Thank you for looking at the books. I can only read 10k words an hour, so it will take time to catch up with you. Feel free to leap ahead, and we will comment as we can.

I'm trying to find the two Fomenko quotes you used. I'm looking in Book one, and the search isn't finding them. Can you tell us the chapter and page where they are so we can read the context.

Thanks...
allynh
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Anatoly Fomenko: False Chonology

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Fri Feb 03, 2017 5:04 am

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fSv ... &q&f=false

Page 235 (of the book, Google gives p236). Section 2b for the tyrant part and 5a for the Hohenstaufen.
You will find that what I quoted is verbatim.

I'm not reading this drivel. I have some knowledge of the ancient Mediterranean so I looked at what Fomenko had to say. There does not appear to be anything to read, certainly no context or narrarative just a string of assertions interspersed with statistical graphs and charts.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Anatoly Fomenko: False Chonology

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Fri Feb 03, 2017 5:23 am

john666,
"historical sources", that are according to Grey Cloud absolutely credible because the "historical sources" cannot be made by liars;
Please show where I have said anything like that.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Anatoly Fomenko: False Chonology

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Fri Feb 03, 2017 7:27 am

Allynh,
If you come across anything where Fomenko details how this 'Scalingerian chronology' came to be implemented etc, could you post the relevant page so I can try and get my head around it? Thanks.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Anatoly Fomenko: False Chonology

Unread postby allynh » Fri Feb 03, 2017 10:39 am

Oh, I see the problem. You are looking in book two rather than book one.

I found the first Fomenko quote in Chapter 3, on page 235, left column, first paragraph.
02.jpg

And the second Fomenko quote on the same page, right column, last paragraph.
03.jpg

The books are broken up into chapters that address a similar theme. The one you looked at in book two is showing that:
05.jpg

That is the title shot from page 231.

Book two is devastating, but it is easier to understand Fomenko once you see what he is doing, as explained in book one.

This is the blurb for book one.
Jesus Christ was born in 1153 AD and crucified in 1186 AD. Unbelievable? Not since the release of the first volume in seven of "History: Fiction or Science?" series. This series crowns 30 years of research by Anatoly Fomenko and his colleagues. In Chapter I readers are reminded of when the contemporary chronological scale was created, who created it, and that it had major critics. The Biblical Jerusalem is identified with the mediaeval Constantinople. The New Testament was written before the Old, both exposed as referring to mediaeval events. Chapters II, III and IV contain abundant astronomical proof from the ancient Egyptian zodiacs, Ptolemy's Almagest, and the Apocalypse, demonstrating that all datings of 'ancient' eclipses are either medieval or fake. Chapters V and VI contain in-depth descriptions of the research methods used. In chapter VII readers learn more about confusion of the Antiquity and the Middle Ages. The appendices contain factual information to appease skeptics.

This is the blurb for book two.
According to author Anatoly T. Fomenko, so-called consensual history is a finly woven magic fabric of intricate lies about events preceding the sixteenth century. There is not a single piece of firm written evidence or artifact that can be reliably and independently traced back earlier than the sixteenth century. The archaeological, dedrochronological, paleographical, and carbon methods of dating ancient sources and artifacts are both non-exact and contradictory. Nearly all of the methods of dating components are blatently untrue!

If you look at book one, page ii, you will see a brief list of the topic for each chapter:
06.jpg

The contents page starts on page vii. You will see blue links to each chapter and section:
07.jpg

That is where you will find Fomenko's description of the problem with Scaliger's chronology.

If you read through book one first, take your time, you will see all of the technical details you need to understand his point.

Remember to bookmark each book so that you can find them quickly. If you can include a quick snapshot of the paragraph, tell us the chapter and page number you are in, we can easily read along with you, and be on the same page.

Thank you for getting me to read the Fomenko books again, I have a bunch of SciFi books that I need to write, and I need to refresh my notes. I've got a number of stories where historians use a time machine to go back 2000 years to the Crucifixion, only to find nothing there. Another group go back thousands of years to watch fights at the Colosseum, only to discover that it was built only a few hundred years, not thousands of years ago. Fun stuff. HA!
allynh
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Anatoly Fomenko: False Chonology

Unread postby GaryN » Fri Feb 03, 2017 10:53 am

Found another book by a mathematician:
The Lost Millennium
History’s Timetables under Siege
https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content/lost-millennium
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2535
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Anatoly Fomenko: False Chonology

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Fri Feb 03, 2017 11:17 am

GaryN wrote:Found another book by a mathematician:
The Lost Millennium
History’s Timetables under Siege
https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content/lost-millennium

He meets a colorful cast of characters along the way. Chief among them is Anatoli Fomenko, a Russian mathematician who supports drastically revising historical chronology based on his extensive research in ancient astronomy, linguistics, cartography, and a crucial manuscript by Ptolemy.

Ask yourself why these guys are mathematicians and not historians.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Anatoly Fomenko: False Chonology

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Fri Feb 03, 2017 11:55 am

Allynh,
I found the first Fomenko quote in Chapter 3, on page 235, left column, first paragraph.
And the second Fomenko quote on the same page, right column, last paragraph.
That's where I found them too.
And having found and read them, what is your reaction to my criticism?

I am quite good at reading books. I know all about publishers' blurbs, chapter headings, title and contents pages, indexes and bibliographies.
I notice from the bibliography that Homer and Herodotus are translations and Plato is not even there. So what source documents has Fomenko looked at? Can he actually read Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Aramaic, Lydian, etc.?
I also failed to notice much modern scholarship. I saw Petrie and Sayce from a century ago and even David Hatcher Childress (Cities of Atlantis).
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Anatoly Fomenko: False Chonology

Unread postby GaryN » Fri Feb 03, 2017 12:20 pm

Ask yourself why these guys are mathematicians and not historians.


We must have examination by those outside of the mainstream disciplines, otherwise they become incestuous, "excessively close and resistant to outside influence". Astronomy/astrophysics, geology, and history are all in need of a good shake-up, IMO.

Socrates believed that philosophy - the love of wisdom - was the most important pursuit above all else. For some, he exemplifies more than anyone else in history the pursuit of wisdom through questioning and logical argument, by examining and by thinking.


Question Authority.
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2535
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron