is ancient history a lie?

[decypher]

Originally Posted by Revolver

lol...he's talking about the biblical nephilim...the 'giants' who came down from the heavens and created us and took human wives bla bla bla bla...

it is said,that the nephilim are(google enki and enlil) are directly responsible for tampering with the dna of primates to create humans to work in the gold mines...wich inturn created sumeria wich is basically the very first 'recorded' human civiliation.

trace it alllllllll back and, as far as we know, it all starts with the sumerians. theres nothing older. those folks have some seriously bizarre imagry in their pottery and tablets...

its actaully a pretty fascinating,alternative, archeological theory. ive been interested in it for a long time now..

oh...and john travolta is one of them....

see.....


travolta is also a scientologist,therefore he cant be wrong.

look i found the missing link between travolta and humans! Now we got a fossil record uh oh.

[NinjaBoy]

Also don't forget the huge Russian bias written into the books. While it doesn't outright dispprove his theory, it is interesting that an anti putin russian citizen would "prove" that almost all modren civilization is started in Russia.

[Revolver]

^^ahah....i seen those things IN THE REAL at some museum when i was passing through pisco,

they say that they would bandage the skulls of little noble babies in order to shape them to mimic the shape of the heads of their gods.

cause you know,like new born babies skulls are soft and malluable much like some of the brains of posters in this thread.

oh, and their gods being ALIENS!!!

I MEAN COME OON AM I RIGHT?.....MARKPAUL!!...IMMMMA RIGHT?...

[azazel]

Originally Posted by decypher

New Chronology (Fomenko) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

where does it say he fudged the numbers. quote the passage.

[NinjaBoy]

Originally Posted by azazel

where does it say he fudged the numbers. quote the passage.

Jesus, their titled...

Unaccounted astronomical phenomena
Critics point out that Fomenko's discussion of astronomical phenomena tends to be selective, chosing isolated examples that support the New Chronology and ignoring the large bodies of data that provide statistically supported evidence for the conventional dating. For his dating of the Almagest star catalog, Fomenko arbitrarily selected eight stars from the more than 1000 stars in the catalog, one of which (Arcturus) has a large systematic error. This star has a dominant effect on Fomenko's dating.[35] Statistical analysis using the same method for all "fast" stars points to the antiquity of the Almagest star catalog.[36][37] Rawlins points out further that Fomenko's statistical analysis got the wrong date for the Almagest because he took as constant Earth's obliquity when it is a variable that changes at a very slow, but known, rate.[38]

Fomenko's studies ignore the abundance of dated astronomical records in cuneiform texts from Mesopotamia. Among these texts is a series of astronomical diaries, which records precise astronomical observations of the Moon and planets, often dated in terms of the reigns of known historical figures extending back to the sixth century BCE. Astronomical retrocalculations for all these moving objects allow us to date these observations, and consequently the rulers' reigns, to within a single day.[39] The observations are sufficiently redundant that only a small portion of them are sufficient to date a text to a unique year in the period 750 BCE to 100 CE. The dates obtained agree with the accepted chronology.[40] In addition, F. R. Stephenson has demonstrated through a systematic study of a large number of Babylonian, Ancient and Medieval European, and Chinese records of eclipse observations that they can be dated consistently with conventional chronology at least as far back as 600 BCE.[41] In contrast to Fomenko's missing centuries, Stephenson's studies of eclipse observations find an accumulated uncertainty in the timing of the rotation of the earth of 420 seconds at 400 BCE, and only 80 seconds at 1000 CE.[42]

Misuse of historical sources and forced pattern matching


Critics of Fomenko's theory claim that his use of historical sources is highly selective and ignores the basic principles of sound historical scholarship.

Fomenko ... provides no fair-minded review of the historical literature about a topic with which he deals, quotes only those sources that serve his purposes, uses evidence in ways that seem strange to professionally-trained historians and asserts the wildest speculation as if it has the same status as the information common to the conventional historical literature.[32]

They also note that his method of statistically correlating of texts is very rough, because it does not take into account the many possible sources of variation in length outside of "importance". They maintain that differences in language, style, and scope, as well as the frequently differing views and focuses of historians, which are manifested in a different notion of "important events," make quantifying historical writings a dubious proposition at best. What's more, Fomenko's critics allege that the parallelisms he reports are often derived by alleged forcing by Fomenko of the data – rearranging, merging, and removing monarchs as needed to fit the pattern.

For example, on the one hand Fomenko asserts that the vast majority of ancient sources are either irreparably distorted duplicate accounts of the same events or later forgeries. In his elision of Jesus and Pope Gregory VII (Book 2, Chapter 2, pg 51} he ignores the otherwise vast dissimilarities between their reported lives and focuses on the similarity of their appointment to religious office by baptism. (The evangelical Jesus is traditionally believed to have lived for 33 years, and he was an adult at the time of his encounter with John the Baptist. In contrast, Pope Gregory VII lived for at least 60 years and was born 8 years after the death of John Crescentius, according to the available primary sources.[33])

Critics allege that many of the supposed correlations of regnal durations are the product of the selective parsing and blending of the dates, events, and individuals mentioned in the original text.[34] Another point raised by critics is that Fomenko does not explain his altering the data (changing the order of rulers, dropping rulers, combining rulers, treating interregna as rulers, switching between theologians and emperors, etc.) preventing a duplication of the effort and therefore hinting that his results may have a pathological science aspect to them akin to N-rays over a century ago and effectively making this whole theory an Ad hoc hypothesis.[20]

[azazel]

why won't they step up and debate him and win the cash prize then?

Publisher announces 10,000 USD cash reward for the solid scientific refutation of the New Chronology. Have a look at the advertising spot that History Channel TV refused to air.

[NinjaBoy]

Originally Posted by azazel

why won't they step up and debate him and win the cash prize then?

Publisher announces 10,000 USD cash reward for the solid scientific refutation of the New Chronology. Have a look at the advertising spot that History Channel TV refused to air.

It's accepted in scientific circles that debates like this are meaningless. Pseudoscience supporters do this all the time.

It's almost impossible to prove a negative like this without actually being there.

There's a cash prize for this, disproving creationism, hallow earth, and that scientoligy's beliefs.

These are things that most people can accept as impossible, but try and disprove Scientology's history beyond a shadow of a doubt. It's impossible.

A UFO picked me up last night while I was walking in the park, and flew me to china for dinner. I think it's safe to say that everyone here would think that there's no reason to believe that, but you can't actually disprove it.

[azazel]

how convenient





































FOR THE RULING ELITE!

[NinjaBoy]

That gold!

[djmarkpaul]

Originally Posted by SEAN!

the problem with paranoia is that some people are capable of rational thought and others, like you, for some reason or another are not.

A non sequitur and ad hominem in one sentence...

...only you could ignore such triviality (all because you want to see me on one side of the fence, and you on another). So far I agree with everyone here that is questioning Fomenko as a work that is theoretical at best, but it seems you're too caught up in appearances to notice.


So much for your rationale.

[djmarkpaul]

Originally Posted by SEAN!

theories generally have empirical evidence and can be shown to be false. This their has neither, it is not a theory it is speculation with ancedotal evidence to support. thats why its not even worth taking seriously, and that is why 'establishment' science won't even look at it. This is science in the same way creationism or religion is science.

That's a hypothetical imperative, the only thing you can be certain of with that kind of statement is your ignorance is bound by the status quo.

[SEAN!]

Originally Posted by djmarkpaul

That's a hypothetical imperative, the only thing you can be certain of with that kind of statement is your ignorance is bound by the status quo.

better then being bound by schizophernia i guess!

[djmarkpaul]

Originally Posted by NinjaBoy

I understand what your trying to say, but I think that's a very black and white way of looking at it.

How so, by saying that the truth is more a sutble shade of grey I'm being black and white?

(don't answer yes for the sake of pun)

Originally Posted by NinjaBoy

Yes, some things need to be changed, but trying to find find errors in history for the sake of it isn't quite the same as what you are saying.

I don't think it's just for the sake of it...but you're right it isn't the same as what I was saying, it wasn't supposed to be.

Originally Posted by NinjaBoy

It's one thing for me to purpose that artifical intelligence if developed might one day turn on us. It's another thing for me to publish the book and sell it as fact.

I really liked Terminator 2 the best out of that series. Now we have the Sara Conner Chronicles.... *sigh*

Originally Posted by NinjaBoy

Read his book. I've read the first part of it. It's one thing to purpose a theory. It's another to call it fact and sell it as an "encyclopedia".

Agreed.

Deterministic logic is rampant in all sectors of the society, fringe or not, and it is a mistake...I am aware of the paradox.

Originally Posted by NinjaBoy

If it was purposed as a theory open for debate, fine. But stating it as a fact puts his work on the same level of those arguing creationism.

Perhaps it would help you to take a more Kantian perspective on the principle of sufficient reason.

Originally Posted by NinjaBoy

Then you can't really argue against them. And since I'm not christian it's not really worth using that against me.

Shelf life.

Originally Posted by NinjaBoy

And there isn't any problem challenging the status quo socially and scientifically. The acceptance we have of other cultures would have been unheard of even 50 years ago. People challenged the status quo. The idea of planet's orbiting other world's wasn't proven till the last decade. Science changes, theories are put forward, researched, studied and proven. It's simply amazing the level of advancements that can be made.

True...but can you justify how many findings are still lost to the society at large because deterministic thinking filters out any means for a truthful unbaised debate on such new finds?

This will happen when people allow observational considerations to do the thinking rather then their limited world view/socially conditioned ego. Rather than having a vested interest in being 'rational' ... people should strive for TRUTH...and respect those that do so in their own way, regardless of how many disagreements may arise due to differing models of logic/reason.


It really is that simple, until the discriminative ego decides otherwise.


The psychology of the human being has much catching up to do with our science. This will change when people realize that we have more to gain by being less deterministic, as history has proven time and time again (or maybe that's just what the Jesuits want me to believe :nuts: ).

Originally Posted by NinjaBoy

That being said, there are a lot ideas and theories that exist that could be proven, some would suprise me. Some wouldn't.

The trick is not to be surprised at all, but rather to be open to possibilities that may surprise us. When we allow data to speak for itself regardless of how outlandish it may seem, then I'll be surprised.

Originally Posted by NinjaBoy

I would however be absolutley stunned, if it could be proven that almost all civilizations on Earth are the same, and this fact is part of a Church conspiracy (A church by the theories logic places Jesus Christ death at 1053, when the church was in existance already for hundreds of years).

Me too...but I see enough holes in orthodox history to allow even such outlandish claims to be considered in an unbaised manner, only by doing so, can we expect to surface any truth that there may be in this work, or debunk the claims that are untrue.

Originally Posted by NinjaBoy

I read the forward, and a few dozen pages (Thanks free books from google). It would be nice if I had time to read a seven volume book (that is really poorly written by the way) but I don't...

It's understandable...however this illustrates the knowledge filter I was talking about earlier, and the flaws of deterministic thinking yet again.

Originally Posted by NinjaBoy

Seriously people. Yes some conspiracies can exist, I'll admit it. (JFK assaination for example always seemed a little fishy).

You've just been blacklisted!

Originally Posted by NinjaBoy

He has two things he uses as proof. Astronimical chart comparisons (it's already be shown that he fudged some numbers), and the lifespans of reigning kings in Europe (Since the lifespans and reigns of some of the kings in Europe were the same as those in Egypt, it could be said that they are the same people and the same histories).

Through this, he's extrapilated that many civilizations did not exist. (Egypt, most of the dynasties of China...)

This has all been hidden by a massive catholic group that rewrote history in the middle ages (And apparently somehow in China but I haven't gotten that far yet).

I would wonder what his refutations are on the apparent fudged numbers...I would not expect this to be a proper debunking unless directly presenting it to him and he gives me an "I dunno" response.


Debunking is a highly deterministic school of thought, it fails almost always as a result of being circular/squashing debates before they start. I for one, would like to see those points debated by Fomenko.

Originally Posted by NinjaBoy

But they took the small history of their country and basically copied and pasted it to make history millenia longer then it actually is. We've all been suckered.

Can you see why I would be hesitant to believe this?

Totally...I hold much of the same reservations as a result.

[djmarkpaul]

Originally Posted by SEAN!

better then being bound by schizophernia i guess!

That's right... YOU GUESS.

YOU ARE A MAN THAT GUESSES, and assumes he's right.


I guess, and say I guess. One thing I am certain of is my uncertainty.

Yet you are uncertain of your certainty. The only thing you've proven with this statement is that you're potentially more schizo then anyone else on this board.

Thanks for coming out, but you're a total failure at common sense.

I'll give you a little hint, it's not as common as we've been led to believe...blame the Jesuits.

[NinjaBoy]

I'm glad that you agree with me on some points, and disagree on others. I can see the logic in your ideas, and I can see you see mine. I guess we'll have to disagree. If everyone subscribed to only one of our schools of thought, life would be boring. Luckily more people subscribe to mine. Sucka!

[NinjaBoy]

Originally Posted by djmarkpaul

How so, by saying that the truth is more a sutble shade of grey I'm being black and white?

(don't answer yes for the sake of pun)

When we are talking ancient history it is never that easy.

I really liked Terminator 2 the best out of that series. Now we have the Sara Conner Chronicles.... *sigh*

I just started watching this, it's not that bad actually!

Perhaps it would help you to take a more Kantian perspective on the principle of sufficient reason.

I'll admit I had to google kantain. Keep in mind that by using terms and phrases not common in most people's vocab it weakens your arguement. You've been doing it a lot in this thread. But a quick read of Kantain ethics, makes it seem like it sides with me, could you go into depth?

Shelf life.

But I don't subscribe to the same thoughts as the church so that's not applicable to me. Your arguing that it has shelf life because the church has used some arguements for so long. But I've never quoted anything from the church. So while it might have shelf life against someone from the church who uses those arguements and has that set of morals, arguing against me, it doesn't.

Something the church does, doesn't apply to me.

True...but can you justify how many findings are still lost to the society at large because deterministic thinking filters out any means for a truthful unbaised debate on such new finds?

This will happen when people allow observational considerations to do the thinking rather then their limited world view/socially conditioned ego. Rather than having a vested interest in being 'rational' ... people should strive for TRUTH...and respect those that do so in their own way, regardless of how many disagreements may arise due to differing models of logic/reason.


It really is that simple, until the discriminative ego decides otherwise.

I agree, many findings in history are lost because of filters (nationalities, ethics, and religion). And it's a shame, but some filters aren't a bad thing. If society was to truthfully have an unbiased debate on every "scientifc find" are we supposed to debate creationism? Hallow Earth? The bermuda triangle? Scientology?

All supports of these theories have "findings". You for example have a huge bias against scientology (one I agree with) but a bias and filter none the less.

The psychology of the human being has much catching up to do with our science. This will change when people realize that we have more to gain by being less deterministic, as history has proven time and time again (or maybe that's just what the Jesuits want me to believe :nuts: ).

While I agree slightly with this statement, let me post the alternative arguement which I believe is more correct.

People have to be rational in this day and age when disscussing sciences. The last few hundred years have seen many different types of pseudoscience rise and fall. Many in the last decade have found a larger following thanks to the spread of technology.

Modren communication allows people to express their ideas freely and openly. Too many people present these ideas as facts, and far too many people accept them as facts. If people didn't have "knowledge filters" in place then the line between fact and fiction would blur.

The internet allows the blogger have as much credebility as the scientist. A youtube video subsituites research for some.

Without people being skeptical of the knowledge that is coming in, society is going to be dumbed down (more so).

[SEAN!]

Originally Posted by djmarkpaul

That's right... YOU GUESS.

YOU ARE A MAN THAT GUESSES, and assumes he's right.


I guess, and say I guess. One thing I am certain of is my uncertainty.

Yet you are uncertain of your certainty. The only thing you've proven with this statement is that you're potentially more schizo then anyone else on this board.

Thanks for coming out, but you're a total failure at common sense.

I'll give you a little hint, it's not as common as we've been led to believe...blame the Jesuits.

wow, looks like my guess regarding your mental state was right

[-evil-duerr-]

i saw some ufos when i was on acid. what are they NOT telling us?

[esoter1c]

No one knows who built the pyramids, some say Jews, some say aliens, some say reptiles.

That's the beauty of it though, the Mystery.;)










































































































But if you absolutely must know...

Secret Teachings of All Ages Index

[azazel]

Alex Jones told me not to listen to Manly P. Hall and all those dark teachings :o

[esoter1c]

Originally Posted by azazel

Alex Jones told me not to listen to Manly P. Hall and all those dark teachings :o

Secret Teachings....not dark.

[azazel]

why are they secret anyway?

[djmarkpaul]

Originally Posted by SEAN!

wow, looks like my guess regarding your mental state was right

No, you're still just guessing/grasping for straws.

Seems like that little voice of reason us sane individuals call a conscious is being drowned out by a multitude of other voices in your head. I think they're trying to convince you there's a point to you still being here other then continuing to make an ass out of yourself, I assure you there isn't.

In case you're still wallowing in the mire of your discontent, now would be a good time for you to realize that you're out of your depth, for even a shallow guessman like yourself can know when to back out, even if it's beyond the point of grace.

[azazel]

side question: djmarkpaul, what reason do they have for fudging up history like it is alleged?

[Krusha]

Originally Posted by azazel

why are they secret anyway?

because most people don't wanna dig deeper than reading the secret or spending 1 hour on a sunday thinking about God

it's not so much a secret these days as people just not giving a rats ass