IMHO (well I'm not sure how humble I am
) the issue about who to believe is important... I think people can be swayed by peer pressure or individual biases to believe things that are clearly likely to be false...
I don't believe this one author, Fomenko, one year older than myself, with his probable communist indoctrinated anti-religious education, with his weird system of evaluating history by mathematic formulae, is a reputable historian. IMHO
Currently the mainstream media, google itself, and a myriad others openly admit filtering or restricting or manipulating so-called 'news'... politicians are caught out telling outright lies, and yet people are not shocked or dismayed enough, or are unable to insist on better behaviour. Universities have a strong pressure on students to bow to peer pressure. I read it was estimated half of recently published scientific papers make claims that are unreproducible. Big money messes with pure science. Commercial confidentiality hampers the growth of knowledge. Climategate showed that even big profile universities can attempt to tell lies. I have two books written about how Velikovsky was shamefully treated, despite his immaculate scholarly methods (and influential scholarly connections who even included Einstein). Yet Einstein the thinker had one of Velikovsky's books open on his desk the day Einstein died.
In chronology, my list of interlocking and cross referencing sources would be Herodotus, Homer, Pliny, Dudo, Xenophon, Marcellinus, the bible (BTW the bible has lots of history and chronology, and is the most studied, most picked over, most published book in history), the Septuagint, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Gildas, Nennius, The Venerable Bede, The Annals of the Four Masters, The Irish Nennius, Caesar, Dudo, Tacitus, Hesiod, Isidore of Seville, Isaac Newton, Edward Gibbon, Joinville and Villehardouin, The Secret History of the Mongols, the Sira (life of Muhammad), some Hadith (sayings and complementary writings of the muslims, Josephus (about 80 AD, complete expounding of the Bible for his Roman patron, and important source for Jewish history), Marco Polo, Virgil, Plato, Livy, Thucydides, Jamiesons Etymological Dictionary of the Scots Language (with a 250 page historical introduction), Will Durant, Josh McDowell, Cyrus Gordon, John of Damascus, two cd's with hundreds and hundreds of writings of the Church Fathers mainly from before 500AD, the 'silver bible' written in Gothic, the Icelandic Sagas, the Irish Chronicles, the Annals of Ulster etc, Jordanes, The Frankish chronicles (741-849 AD), many books on the history, etymology and development of languages, eg the germanic languages, Gothic, Old Norse, Old High German, Old English (incl Beowulf), Irish, Breton, Welsh, Cornish and Scots Gaelic stories, legends and chronicles, biographies incl Patrick, Columba, Constantine, Attila the Hun, Pepin the Short, Charles Martel the Hammer, Roland, Hrolf the Ganger, Aethelstan, Tostig, Harald Hardrader, etc etc... and many hundreds of books with photos of architecture, paintings, pottery and sculpture, coins, illuminated manuscripts all which include a pretty complete picture of the the historical period before 1000 AD.
It doesn't mean I believe every part of every book mentioned is true, just that the general picture is an organic whole, for instance I believe Velikovsky is likely to be correct in his criticism of the chronology of Egypt that was set in cement by Flinders-Petrie, and thus many events in the near east being out of whack with duplicate reigns of some leaders, Velikovsky gives very detailed and reliable quotes for his sources. The Hittites=Chaldeans is also very believable. Also I think Isaac Newton may have something in his criticisms of the exaggerated length of the Egyptian past, so both V and N fit together in a loose sort of way; like Fomenko maintains; history can be falsified either deliberately or by generations of people being taught in error.