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 » Mon Feb 06, 2017 3:18 pm

Grey Cloud wrote:Fomenko's first four vols can be downloaded here in pdf:

That's amazing.

Book one online is the second edition, but the pdf is still a big win since we can compare both.
2nd.jpg
2nd.jpg (6.35 KiB) Viewed 1369 times

The other three are the same as what I have in paper. This makes it easier to read because I can highlight, bookmark, and search the pdf. Did I mention that they are the size of phone books? This is gold.

Thanks...

-----

I love the quote at the start of Book Four. HA!
Santayana.jpg
allynh
 
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Anatoly Fomenko: False Chonology

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Mon Feb 06, 2017 4:07 pm

Lots of people attribute that quote to Santayana but no one ever provides a source. The quote is nonsense anyway; lies are deliberate untruths. History tells me George Washington was the first president of the U.S. Is that a lie?
Santayana was a mainstream scholar so if he did say that it undermines Fomenko's argument somewhat.

Meanwhile you have come up with another illustrated post telling us what we should do and once more failed to address my criticisms regarding Herodotus, Plato etc.

Speaking of Plato, if Pletho was Plato then how come one of his most well-known works is 'De Differentiis' -a.k.a. 'The Differences Between Plato and Aristotle'?

Earlier I was reading Fomenko's account of the history of Britain. :lol: :lol: :lol: We here in the U.K. do not, repeat, do not trace our history back to the Trojan War. :o :shock: No one in this country takes Geoffrey of Monmouth or Nennius to be historians in anything like the moden meaning of the word and haven't done for hundreds of years.
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 » Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:47 pm

I suspect that Santayana was being ironic, that's how I take it.

Aside from all that, well done in finding the books on pdf. They are gold. Thanks...
allynh
 
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Anatoly Fomenko: False Chonology

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Tue Feb 07, 2017 8:53 am

allynh wrote:I suspect that Santayana was being ironic, that's how I take it.

Aside from all that, well done in finding the books on pdf. They are gold. Thanks...

It's true then: Americans don't understand irony. Neither the publishers nor you were using that quote as irony. The irony lies in the fact that a quote by a mainstream scholar was used in an attempt to give credence to Fomenko's assertion that all mainstream scholarship is wrong.

Still no reply to my criticisms. Deary me, I'm beginning to think that you don't have any answers.
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 » Tue Feb 07, 2017 2:50 pm

Churchill was right. We are two people separated by a common language. HA!
allynh
 
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Anatoly Fomenko: False Chonology

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Wed Feb 08, 2017 8:53 am

Paul Botley, Dirk van Miert (ed.), The Correspondence of Joseph Justus Scaliger (8 vols.). Travaux d'humanisme et Renaissance, 507/1-8. Genève: Librairie Droz, 2012. Pp. 5,000. ISBN 9782600015523. $528.00. [Not exactly 'bargains, much cheapness' is it?]
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2014/2014-10-02.html

The questions that defined his erudition remain alight throughout the history of scholarship: what is authentic, how much can be known, whose judgement can we trust? Thanks to Grafton, in particular, it is possible to understand the transformation that Scaliger wrought in the humanist scholarship that had been practised for more than a century by his French and Italian forebears. In the process, we can see how Scaliger stood so high in the estimation of contemporaries, who did not share the values of late nineteenth- or early twentieth-century classical scholarship, and appreciate some of the reasons why Scaliger’s heirs were so perverse as to fall away from what seemed to later minds to be their hero’s standards. We still lack a true biography of Scaliger, but we understand the life in scholarship of a man who can plausibly be said to have lived for scholarship.
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 » Wed Feb 08, 2017 1:03 pm

Wow! I love this. More gold. Thanks...

Paul Botley, Dirk van Miert (ed.), The Correspondence of Joseph Justus Scaliger (8 vols.). Travaux d'humanisme et Renaissance, 507/1-8. Genève: Librairie Droz, 2012. Pp. 5,000. ISBN 9782600015523. $528.00.
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2014/2014-10-02.html
The work under review is the first critical edition to modern standards of the correspondence of arguably the most important scholar of the classical world active during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries.

At the funeral of Joseph Scaliger (1540-1609), his colleagues at the University of Leiden, Daniel Heinsius and Dominicus Baudius delivered orations that celebrated the ‘learning so unprecedented in a single man’, which had left no field of letters ‘untouched or untried’: ‘nothing escaped him which was worthy of notice and on which he had decided that he ought to bestow his efforts.’1 Scaliger’s friends, disciples, and immediate successors burnished his reputation. Accounts of his table talk, frequently reprinted, vied with his constant presence in the chain of authorities cited by editors to keep his name always in the mind of early modern scholars of classical and Christian antiquity. Jacob Bernays and Mark Pattison extolled him to a new generation in the mid-nineteenth century. If Housman was typically sharp in exposing the ‘arrant gasconading’ of Scaliger’s table talk, he wrote with genuine reverence of his achievement as a critic of Manilius, whose deductions were ‘enough to make a dozen editors illustrious.’2 Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, who sternly turned against such ‘wild conjectures’, nevertheless enumerated Scaliger’s achievements: the discovery of early Latin as a living language; the reconstruction of the canon of Eusebius and of the basis for chronology; the idea of compiling a complete collection of Latin inscriptions; the editing of unpromising classical texts, regardless of their lack of intrinsic literary or scientific merit, in order to shed light on ancient beliefs and practices. ‘Nobody before [Barthold Georg] Niebuhr rated Scaliger at his true worth.’3

More recent historians and students of antiquity, led by Henk Jan de Jonge and Anthony Grafton, have shown greater respect for the judgement of Scaliger’s contemporaries. They have allowed us to understand Scaliger’s achievement as perhaps the first scholar of ancient history and ancient religion to attempt properly to contextualise the evidence before him. Their Scaliger is the judicious inventor of a chronological system which can be independent of ancient accounts of history, including that of the Bible; the sceptical interrogator of the language and antiquity of Jewish and Christian texts; the excited seeker after new forms of evidence and knowledge, whether in Byzantine chronography or Samaritan sacred books. The questions that defined his erudition remain alight throughout the history of scholarship: what is authentic, how much can be known, whose judgement can we trust? Thanks to Grafton, in particular, it is possible to understand the transformation that Scaliger wrought in the humanist scholarship that had been practised for more than a century by his French and Italian forebears. In the process, we can see how Scaliger stood so high in the estimation of contemporaries, who did not share the values of late nineteenth- or early twentieth-century classical scholarship, and appreciate some of the reasons why Scaliger’s heirs were so perverse as to fall away from what seemed to later minds to be their hero’s standards. We still lack a true biography of Scaliger, but we understand the life in scholarship of a man who can plausibly be said to have lived for scholarship.

After Grafton had won the Balzan prize in 2002, he established a research project at the Warburg Institute to produce a modern edition of Scaliger’s extensive correspondence. Such an edition is an essential tool for understanding Scaliger’s true place in the republic of letters, as well as providing the material out of which further evaluation and re-evaluation of Scaliger’s life and scholarship might develop. After eight years of labour (2004-2012), eight volumes of Scaliger’s letters have now been published, edited with exemplary skill and tact by Paul Botley and Dirk van Miert, and beautifully produced by Librairie Droz of Geneva. Seven volumes contain the main sequence of more than 1600 letters, printed in date order from 10 April 1561 to 3 February 1609 (two weeks after Scaliger’s death), with the eighth consisting of a few undated letters, a list of 119 datable letters to and from Scaliger that can be inferred to have existed from the correspondence itself, a remarkable biographical register, and an index of personal names and some subjects. Two-thirds of the letters are written in Latin (with frequent references to Greek and less frequent ones to Arabic, Hebrew, and other languages), almost all of the remainder are in French (with a notable exception being the letters to Scaliger from the Samaritans of Cairo and from Eleazar, high priest at Sichem, which are printed here in Hebrew rather than Samaritan type, and of which the editors were unable to see the originals, supposed to be held in the department of oriental manuscripts in the Bibliothèque nationale de France). The editors have normally been indefatigable in tracking down and comparing surviving copies of letters, and identifying priority between them. Their apparatus is consistently helpful in providing variant readings and in establishing the dates and immediate contexts for letters. People and texts referred to in the letters are spotlessly identified and discussed in the notes, although the secondary literature cited there is not always repeated in the relevant entries in the biographical register. Given the breadth of Scaliger’s learning, the unfamiliarity of many of his concerns to modern editors and compilers of reference works, and the (sometimes deliberate) allusiveness of his writing, the seamless presentation achieved in the main by Botley and van Miert represents an astonishing achievement. From the point of view of the text, they have established a definitive corpus of Scaliger’s correspondence, in a form that will assist the understanding of even very erudite readers.

That this work was necessary derived from the complex history of the publication and survival of Scaliger’s correspondence, about which the editors provide an adequate account in their introduction to the edition. This reveals the extent to which the surviving corpus of Scaliger’s letters was shaped by the collecting and sifting of his correspondence by its recipients and above all by friends who themselves published, assisted with, or planned to publish editions of their exchanges with Scaliger: Isaac Casaubon, Janus Gruter, Dominicus Baudius, Pierre Dupuy, and Daniel Heinsius. Differences in editorial skill and method and in the resources of printers and publishers help to explain discrepancies between the early editions of Scaliger’s letters and the originals (where they survive or can be reconstructed). They also help to account for differing patterns of survival: all but five of the letters that Casaubon had received from Scaliger and to which he referred in the first selection to be printed from Scaliger’s correspondence in the Opuscula of 1610 exist in autograph (and can be found in the collection made by Dupuy for his abortive edition), whereas the earliest witness to almost all of Scaliger’s letters to Gruter is the augmented reprint of the Opuscula, with which Gruter seems to have collaborated, and which appeared in 1612. One consequence of this is that whereas thirty letters of Scaliger to Gruter are known, only two survive in any form from Gruter to Scaliger (one in manuscript). Casaubon’s correspondence was itself carefully collected after his death, and initially published in 1638. Yet, of the 254 letters between him and Scaliger that are known (the largest exchange surviving from Scaliger’s correspondence), only one of the 143 letters that Casaubon sent to Scaliger (140 of which were printed in 1638) survives in manuscript.

The surviving correspondence of Scaliger is therefore very much less than the sum total of the letters that Scaliger must have written. It is heavily shaped by the choices of seventeenth-century editors and by the materials available to copyists working for seventeenth-century collectors of scholarly correspondence. Despite the considerable number of letters in French, this remains a learned correspondence, with remarkably little leavening from family or business letters. Women scarcely feature in the letters, whether as correspondents or in any other capacity (although the elderly Scaliger acknowledged to Casaubon his dependence on both his servant, Jonas Rousse, and on Rousse’s wife). Botley and van Miert have nevertheless been able to rescue something of the character of Scaliger, clearly expressed in the table talk, from the excisions made in earlier publications. The reader learns much about the range of Scaliger’s interests and his indefatigable pursuit of them. On his birthday in 1601, for example, Scaliger fired off seven letters, one each to Isaac Casaubon in Paris, to Eilhardus Lubinus in Rostock, to Johannes Caselius in Helmstedt (sent with the letter to Lubinus), to Marquard Freher and to Janus Gruter, both in Heidelberg, and to David Hoeschel and Marcus Welser, both in Augsburg. Topics ranged from errors in the Greek of St Paul, to the publication of Gruter’s work on inscriptions (to which Scaliger played midwife, spending ten months on its index) and Lubinus’ edition of Juvenal, the exchange of information about manuscripts, and the progress of Scaliger’s edition of Eusebius. The letters assume that several of the correspondents will be known to one another, and offer up information or reflections about the activities of one to another. They reveal Scaliger’s praise of the achievements of his friends, his anxieties about his own work and distrust of his printer, and the pride that prevented him from begging for access to manuscripts that he needed.

Pride in both his own work and that of his father, as well as in his ancestry, represents a sometimes discordant theme across much of Scaliger’s correspondence, sometimes lightened by humour, however, as in another letter addressed to Welser on 13 November 1607: ‘Last evening our Mylius informed me that he had learned from your letter that I was dead at Prague. I do not suppose, dear Welser, that it makes any great difference to me whether I am dead somewhere else, so long as I am alive here.’4 It is a pity that these differences of tone will be lost for many readers, since they are missing from the dry English summaries provided by the editors for each letter. Indeed, for modern readers, the greatest shortcoming by far of this edition lies in these summaries, which capture little more than the kernel of the content of what Scaliger writes and almost none of the style with which he expresses himself. It would have been too much to ask the editors to make full English translations of every letter, although all but the most erudite readers might have gained from such an exercise. This reader would certainly have found it easier to navigate the correspondence had the letters been numbered sequentially, which might also have saved space in an index volume that is sometimes hard to use. The discussion of the correspondence in the introduction is admirably terse, but might have gained from offering greater statistical information about the distribution of Scaliger’s letters by correspondent, date, and location of recipient.

When Joseph Scaliger composed his will on 18 November 1608, he ordered that ‘the other writings which shall be found after my death… I neither wish nor permit that they be published, inasmuch as they are incomplete and without any arrangement…’, going on to allow Heinsius permission to ‘deal with and correct according to his judgment’ those which ‘I have composed, corrected by my hand and enlarged.’5 Heinsius interpreted this permission as extending to the edition that he prepared of Scaliger’s correspondence, published at Leiden in 1627. We may all rejoice, however, that Grafton as Maecenas and Botley and van Miert as editors have so disregarded Scaliger’s intentions. The efforts of Heinsius have at last been superseded, and a proper gathering in has been made of the epistolary remains of a true prince of the republic of letters. Our descendants will be using the fruit of their labours for as long as books are read and letters regarded, which one must hope will be for at least a further three hundred and eighty five years.

Notes:
1. George W. Robinson (ed.), Autobiography of Joseph Scaliger (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927), pp. 77, 94.
2. A.E. Housman (ed.), M. Manilii Astronomicon liber primus (London: Grant Richards, 1903), pp. xiii-xiv.
3. U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, History of Classical Scholarship, ed. Hugh Lloyd-Jones, trans. Alan Harris (London: Duckworth, 1982), pp. 52-3.
4. Translated in Robinson (ed.), Autobiography of Scaliger, p. 53.
5. Translated in Robinson (ed.), Autobiography of Scaliger, pp. 63, 68.
allynh
 
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Anatoly Fomenko: False Chonology

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Wed Feb 08, 2017 1:35 pm

What was the point of that post?
Forum etiquette is to post a link and perhaps a short 'taster' extract, not clog up the thread with long extracts.

Still no sign of any response to my criticisms of Fomenko.
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 jtb » Thu Feb 09, 2017 3:39 pm

Found another video source that explains in English with an accent, Fomenko:s new chronology backed up with much more evidence and explanations. Google Sylvie Ivanowa.
jtb
 
Posts: 536
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:36 am

Re: Anatoly Fomenko: False Chonology

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Thu Feb 09, 2017 5:30 pm

jtb wrote:Found another video source that explains in English with an accent, Fomenko:s new chronology backed up with much more evidence and explanations. Google Sylvie Ivanowa.

Could you provide a link for something with 'much more evidence', please? I just had a quick look and one of her pieces of evidence, a la Fomenko, was that in the middle-ages people used to write 'Jesus' in a different way, i.e. 'Iesus'. Well they may well have done if they were writing in (mediaeval) Latin. The Romans wrote 'Iupiter'. To borrow from Mel Brooks: 'those Romans were nuts, n.v.t.s, nuts'.
English, French and Germans probably did not write it like that and the Greeks and Arabs certainly didn't. And, come to think of it, neither did the Russians (their cyrillic script is based on the Greek script).

The rest of the stuff from your woman was New Age twaddle with all the right buzz-words in place. And the voice: surely someone with such a cutesy little girl lost voice must be telling the truth. Pur-leez.
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 sketch1946 » Thu Feb 09, 2017 11:37 pm

Haha the title of this thread describes it very accurately...

I hardly know where to start, maybe besides ancient books, people could look at history through art, there are many artworks through the centuries, or architecture, or gravestones, or pottery, or coins...

For example there have been historians, real ones, from Greece, Mesopotamia, Egypt, India and China, Africa, as well as all the countries of Europe.

One bible historian collected 86,000 quotations from the bible from before the fifth century after Christ, written by people all around the Mediterranean that were involved in the history of the early church... including St Cyril who invented the Russian alphabet to teach the pagan Russians etc etc.

There is also a science of paleography, all about the development of writing, alphabets... for all this to have been falsified in the early 20th century is pure fiction, there would have to have been whole populations, armies, myriads of myriads of forgers... to say it most kindly, this idea from Fomenko is not likely.... :-)
sketch1946
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:56 pm

Re: Anatoly Fomenko: False Chonology

Unread postby sketch1946 » Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:12 am

Haha, silly me... of course! this guy Fomenko seems to be a child of his time by the looks of it, lauded as a gifted even genius mathematician in a Godless State, probably indoctrinated thoroughly in the concept of 'religion is the opiate of the masses'... I have no idea of his motives for writing such pseudohistory, there is no doubt the USSR indoctrinated more than one generation into Orwellian double-speak 'truth'... The Russians are pretty good at science, maths, physics, music, dancing, singing, and chess however... :-)

"As Mikhail Gorbachev aptly stated, the Soviet communist state carried out a comprehensive “war on religion.” He lamented that the Bolsheviks, his predecessors, even after the civil war ended in the early 1920s, during a time of “peace,” had “continued to tear down churches, arrest clergymen, and destroy them. This was no longer understandable or justifiable. Atheism took rather savage forms in our country at that time.”

"The Soviet Union, reflective of the communist world as a whole, was openly hostile to religion and officially atheist; it was not irreligious or unreligious, with no stance on religion, but took the position that there was no God. Moreover, that atheism translated into a form of vicious anti-religion that included a systematic, often brutal campaign to eliminate belief. This began from the outset of the Soviet communist state and still continues in various forms in communist countries to this day, from China to North Korea to Cuba."

"Communist Teaching: The roots of this hatred and intolerance of religion lie in the essence of communist ideology. Marx dubbed religion the “opiate of the masses,” and opined that, “Communism begins where atheism begins.” Speaking on behalf of the Bolsheviks in his famous October 2, 1920 speech, Lenin stated matter-of-factly: “We do not believe in God.” Lenin insisted that “all worship of a divinity is a necrophilia.” He wrote in a November 1913 letter that “any religious idea, any idea of any God at all, any flirtation even with a God is the most inexpressible foulness … the most dangerous foulness, the most shameful ‘infection.’” James Thrower of the University of Virginia (a Russia scholar and also a translator) says that in this letter the type of “infection” Lenin was referring to was venereal disease."

“There can be nothing more abominable than religion,” wrote Lenin in a letter to Maxim Gorky in January 1913. On December 25, 1919, Christmas Day, Comrade Lenin issued the following order, in his own writing: “To put up with ‘Nikola’ [the religious holiday] would be stupid—the entire Cheka must be on the alert to see to it that those who do not show up for work because of ‘Nikola’ are shot.” Under Lenin, this was not an isolated occurrence."

"Along with Trotsky, Lenin became involved in the creation of groups with names like the Society of the Godless, also known as the League of the Militant Godless, which was responsible for the dissemination of anti-religious propaganda in the USSR. This institutionalized bigotry continued to thrive under Lenin’s disciples, most notably Stalin, and even under more benign leaders like Nikita Khrushchev."

"This atheism was endemic to the communist experiment. Even those communists unable to secure political power—and thus lacking the ability to persecute believers—still did their best to persecute the teachings of organized religion and ridicule the idea of the existence of God"

http://victimsofcommunism.org/the-war-on-religion/
sketch1946
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:56 pm

Re: Anatoly Fomenko: False Chonology

Unread postby jtb » Fri Feb 10, 2017 3:48 am

Grey Cloud wrote:Could you provide a link for something with 'much more evidence', please? I just had a quick look and one of her pieces of evidence, a la Fomenko, was that in the middle-ages people used to write 'Jesus' in a different way, i.e. 'Iesus'.
The significance of prefacing a number with an i or a j was that the i or j were interpreted by later chronologists as meaning 1,000. A document dated i350 was interpreted as meaning 1350 AD. Per Fomenko, the i or j originally signified the nativity of Christ.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=214QYY6h4Sc&t=162s
jtb
 
Posts: 536
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:36 am

Re: Anatoly Fomenko: False Chonology

Unread postby jtb » Fri Feb 10, 2017 4:31 am

sketch1946 wrote:for all this to have been falsified in the early 20th century is pure fiction
Correction. Fomenko in the 20th century discovered the false chronology created in the 15th and 16th century prior to the Dark Ages.
sketch1946 wrote:The Russians are pretty good at science, maths, physics, music, dancing, singing, and chess however... :-) "As Mikhail Gorbachev aptly stated, the Soviet communist state carried out a comprehensive “war on religion.”
Very true. Russia also appears to be pretty good at recognizing false chronology. Nevertheless, since the late 90s, Russia has adopted a form of government similiar to ours; Trotsky rather than Lenin type Communism. Now, in both America and Russia, the governments own the land and the citizens pay taxes (tribute) in order to build homes and factories etc... and profit from their labor (also taxed) if conducted according to regulations. America adopted this system in 1933 when our States went from Common, or Natural Law (Law of Sovereigns), to Statute Law (Law of Subjects) due to reneging on their debt to the Federal Reserve Bank.

Russia presently has more religious freedom than America. Send your child to school with a Bible in his hand and see what happens.
jtb
 
Posts: 536
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:36 am

Re: Anatoly Fomenko: False Chonology

Unread postby sketch1946 » Fri Feb 10, 2017 5:53 am

@jtb yeah have to agree there's lots to improve on in our governments.. :-) I was straying a bit off topic with the comments about the communist anti-religion era... hopefully it's all over now...

I've had a look at Fomenko's methodology, can't say I agree with the logic.. a shame since he appears to be a gifted mathematician, but I think his method of using correlations of events from different localities and even countries and then maintaining they are just copies of the same story ... well sorry, doesn't seem right to me.... for example he claims that Thucydides actually lived in medieval times and in describing the Peloponnesian War between the Spartans and Athenians he was actually describing the conflict between the medieval Navarrans and Catalans in Spain from AD 1374 to 1387... nah, too hard for me...

In the introduction to his book Chron 1... a forward from Alexander Zinoviev describes almost exactly what he is doing... "Fomenko's works describe the technology of building a false model of human history which uses the art of manipulating the temporal and spatial coordinates of events. <...> Their forte is the ability to misrepresent historical events while giving correct temporal and spatial coordinates and representing individual facts veraciously and in full detail. The actual falsification is achieved via the selection of facts, their combination and interpretation...

Which is a pretty good description of someone who presents a global falsification of history.

I have read Velikovsky's 'Ramses II and His Time' and V's treatment of chronology especially the relationship of Jewish history and Egyptian history, and found V's reasoning very convincing, his scholarship is immaculate, on almost every page is the source complete with book and chapter even page number of important quotes, I tediously checked every one that I could, V is a monumental scholar... also read Isaac Newton's writings on chronology and ancient history, so there is much to learn and indeed much to 'correct' about ancient history...
sketch1946
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:56 pm

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests