The Puzzle
To be honest, with every day that passes, I realize that I understand the mechanism used to fake our history less and less. I am well past the point when I thought that a simple manipulation could be the answer to historical shenanigans. I still don't know if some sort of a matrix could explain things we see. God's ways are definitely mysterious. Ultimately, I keep on lying to myself that I will be able to crack the puzzle. We have a narrative superimposed over the existing historical evidence of physical nature, and these two do not jive. This article requires some serious perceptional stretching, because without it, certain occurrences are not possible. Please watch the below video by Michelle Gibson. She is way to smart for me, but her hypothesis of the time loop could be something to explore further. If the 1942 Philadelphia Experiment did create some sort of a time loop, jacking everything up in the process, we would have to upgrade our investigative tactics.
With that in mind, a critical analysis of anachronistic issues pertaining to the so-called Napoleonic Wars, could be pretty important for establishing an uncorrupted sequence of looped historical events.
- Anachronistic - belonging to a period other than that being portrayed.
- The PTB History Fabrication Tools
- SPQR this & SPQx that. Empires were everywhere.
- Different Roman non-Romans: why are they dressed like this?
- Dating: Bricks Tell the Story
- Giant "Ancient" Romans, Human Engineering and the Real Slavery
- Fake Antiquity: the bust of Julius Caesar. Why?
- Just think about it... stuff was buried all over the place for (in some cases) millennia, and people did not care.
- How could it be that people did not care?
- 1799: Egypt and Pyramids. This western captivation was renewed in the early nineteenth century when Napoleon Bonaparte led a campaign through Egypt that yielded little military success, but ample scientific discovery.
- 1799: Pompeii. There was much progress in exploration when the French occupied Naples in 1799 and ruled over Italy from 1806 to 1815.
- 1870: Troy discovered by Schliemann.
- 1922: Mohenjo-daro.
- 1911: Machu Picchu.
- 1963: Göbekli Tepe.
- 1812: Petra.
- The Sleeping Cupid was a sculpture created by Michelangelo, which he artificially aged to make it look like an antique.
- It was a significant work in establishing the reputation of the young Michelangelo, who was 21 at the time.
- Michelangelo (1475-1564 AD)
- It is the problem-solving principle that "entities should not be multiplied without necessity.".
- It is sometimes inaccurately paraphrased as "the simplest explanation is usually the best one."
- Source
- The timeline was adjusted to accommodate hundreds of multiplied entities...
- Don't we have way too many different (plausibly explained) Ferdinands, Charleses, Louises, Carls, Ivans, Alexanders, Philips, etc?
- These seven names account for hundreds of different monarchs.
200 years
Who knows, may be there were only 200-250 years separating 500 AD and 1900 AD. I understand that for an unprepared reader this idea sounds pretty ridiculous, but... certain things do point in that direction. For additional information please consider:- Our timeline could be much shorter than we think...
- 492 = i492 = 1492 = 1644 = 1700
- In other words, year 492 AD was 321-377 years ago.
- In 1900, year 492 AD was 200-256 years ago.
- 19th century could be longer than 100 years.
- 1400 years is being very modest. In my opinion we know nothing material about the events predating ~475 AD.
- Naturally, 200 years of events and characters were doubled, tripled, quadrupled and so on.
What's in a name?
I've mentioned it before, and have to say it again. Everything pertaining to our history is more or less a lie. Any book I quote from is merely a reflection of the historical narrative they had at the time of publication. That said, we have two war names to address:- Napoleonic Wars - The Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815) were a series of major conflicts pitting the French Empire and its allies, led by Napoleon I, against a fluctuating array of European powers formed into various coalitions.
- Northern War - The Great Northern War (1700–1721) was a conflict in which a coalition led by the Tsardom of Russia successfully contested the supremacy of the Swedish Empire in Northern, Central and Eastern Europe.
- Yet, at some point, Napoleonic wars were referred to as The Great Northern War.
The participants
- I do not think we are being shown the real enemy. I'm inclined to entertain an idea, where the participants we see above, represent only one side of the "Napoleonic/Northern" wars. Well, may be the Ottoman Empire and Qajar Iran could be an exception...
Who was the real enemy?
- 1. Armored Gaul who symbolizes Napoleon's Grand Armée
- This "Gaul" sure does look like your average ancient Roman soldier
- 2. The map of Russia
Let's start with the map. Per the narrative, we know that in 1812, Russia was extending all the way to the Pacific ocean.
Why would the map of Russia, depicted on the above monument dedicated to the French invasion of 1812 be so much smaller? There are only two possible answers.
- 1. The artist only wanted to show the European part of the vast Russian Empire.
- That, I would imagine, would have been pretty disrespectful to all the soldiers recruited from the eastern part of the empire.
- 2. This is the true size of Russia during the war of 1812.
What's on the map of 1812?
If the historical narrative is lying, and in 1812 Russia was much smaller... would there be any "between the lines" evidence to substantiate such a claim? Let's see what historical maps have a similar outline.- Hessel Gerritsz's map of Russia, first issued 1613, was published by Blaeu after he acquired the plate following Gerritsz's death in 1632.
1812 vs 1613
The following territories were not yet annexed on the above 1613 map. Yet, those territories were already present on the 1812 map installed on the monument dedicated in 1913.
- Astrakhan Khanate: annexed in 1556
- Crimean Khanate: annexed in 1783
- Circassia: annexed in 1864
The Enemy...
Don't ask me which maps are real, and which ones were doctored, for I really do not know. For myself, the totality of circumstances suggests that these two could be more realistic than some other ones.A geographical dictionary representing the present and ancient names of all the counties, provinces, remarkable cities, universities, ports, towns, mountains, seas, streights, fountains, and rivers of the whole world : their distances, longitudes, and latitudes : with a short historical account of the same, and their present state : to which is added an index of the ancient and Latin names.
- Jump to: Russia
- Jump to: Tartary
- In 1688, Tartary was "bounded" on the West by Russia.
Chronology
- 1688 - 1152 = i536
- Yermak, the conqueror of Siberia was born in i532.
- Yermak "conquered" Siberia in i581.
- i581 + 1152 = 1733
- In 1688, they had to wait for additional 45 years to conquer Siberia.
- i688 + 1152 = 1840
- This date would require additional research into Siberian events between 1840, and probably 1923.
- When American troops landed in Siberia, there was not a clear policy as for why the nation was intervening in the Russian Civil War.
- 1688 = i480 = 1789
- 1700 - (҂3)208 = i492
- 1700 - 1688 = 12
- i492 - 12 = i480
- Yermak "conquered" Siberia in i581.
- i581 - i480 = 101
- In 1688, they had to wait for additional 101 years to conquer Siberia.
- 1688 +101 = 1789
- 1700 - (҂3)208 = i492
Note: Use this link to better understand my calculations. I know that this stuff is super confusing.
France. What is it?
- Gallic Empire: 260 - 274 AD
- Frankish Empire: 481 - 843 AD
- Carolingian Empire: 800 - 888 AD
- Napoleonic Empire: 1804 - 1815 AD
Gauls
Franks
Carolingian Empire
Napoleonic France
Chronological Pancake Stack
We are used to the time being a linear thing. But with "God working in mysterious ways" and ouroboros taken into consideration, may be it's not as linear as we think. This is pretty nuts, but who knows?
Franks
Carolingian Empire
Napoleonic France
Chronological Pancake Stack
- What if timelines collapse onto themselves?
- I don't really believe that, but it could really explain a few things we are dealing with.
Anachronisms
- Considering that most, if not all, ancient roman busts were discovered after 1800, this pattern is highly suspicious.
While I did try to address certain issues pertaining to the below two monuments in a different article, I do have to mention these same two monuments in this article as well.
- Installed in 1818 - The Monument to Minin and Pozharsky (+ Rus Wiki)
- dedicated to 1612
- Installed in 1834 - The Alexander Column (+ Rus Wiki)
- dedicated to 1812
The Alexander Column
The monument was raised after the Russian victory in the war with Napoleon's France. The column is named for Emperor Alexander I of Russia, who reigned from 1801–25.- The Alexander Column was designed by Auguste de Montferrand, built between 1830 and 1834 with Swiss-born architect Antonio Adamini, and unveiled on 30 August 1834.
- The pedestal of the Alexander Column is decorated with symbols of military glory, sculpted by Giovanni Battista Scotti.
- Scotti died in 1830.
- The first image is a bas-relief depicting winged figures holding up a plaque bearing the words "To Alexander I from a grateful Russia". Flanking these figures are depictions of old Russian armour:
- the shield of Prince Oleg of Novgorod
- the helmet of Alexander Nevsky
- the breastplate of Alexis of Russia
- the chainmail of Yermak Timofeyevich
- and other pieces recalling heroes whose martial feats brought glory to Russia.
The other three sides are decorated with bas-reliefs featuring allegorical figures of Wisdom and Abundance, Justice and Mercy, Peace and Victory, the last holding a shield bearing the dates 1812, 1813 and 1814. These compositions are enhanced by depictions of Ancient Roman military symbols and Russian armour.
Who knows, may be we should do some mathematics with 1812, 1813 and 1814. The sum equals 5439. Anno Mundi of BC/AD is 5508. Keeping Fomenko's 1152 AD in mind, certain calculations could definitely be made.
- Where is a single person, or piece of equipment pertaining to 1812?
- If this monument does pertain to the war of 1812, then what do we not know about our history?
- Which war was this monument really dedicated to?
Minin and Pozharsky
This particular monument dedicated to the 1612 Battle of Moscow is no less ridiculous than the previous one. The narrative is clearly lying about everything pertaining to it. Let's start with the rear bas-relief.- The bas-relief is dedicated to the victory of the people's militias led by Prince Pozharsky.
- The plot is also divided into two parts.
- On the left, the Poles fleeing from Moscow, looking with horror at the victors, on the right Pozharsky, leading the brave warriors, tramples on horseback and drives the enemy away with a sword.
- We have to enjoy the irony here.
- Events depicted on the above bas-relief simply had to happen before 750 AD, if we follow the dogmatic chronology.
- In the first draft, Minin stood in a belted chiton, in a raincoat, and pointed to Moscow with his outstretched left hand.
- Prince Pozharsky, also dressed in a tunic, in a strongly fluttering cloak and a Roman helmet, rushed forward.
- A chiton is a form of tunic that fastens at the shoulder, worn by men and women of Ancient Greece and Rome.
- In 1552 the Russian army undertook a campaign against Kazan. The chronicles tell that Tsar Ivan the Terrible, having arrived at the walls of the besieged city, commanded "to unfold the Christian banners, that is to say, the banner, on it the image of the Savior." Further in the chronicle it was specified that "the banner was written on a worm-like stone", that is, it was crimson. After the capture of Kazan, a solemn prayer service was served at the banner of the "Most Merciful Savior", and the tsar ordered to build a church on the site where the banner stood during the siege of the city. This historical banner has survived to this day in the Kremlin Armory. It has a length of 4 arshins 2 vershoks (about 3 meters), a height of 2 arshins 2 vershoks (1.5 meters). The image of Christ is embroidered in gold, silver and silk on scarlet taffeta; there are two crosses and five stars on the slope; the edge is trimmed with gold and crimson silk.
It is my understanding that in Bulgaria, Serbia and Russia they call Joshua Iisús Navín.
- "Jesus" is the English derivative of the Greek transliteration of "Yehoshua" via Latin.
- In the Septuagint, all instances of the word "Yehoshua" are rendered as "Ἰησοῦς" (Iēsoūs), the closest Greek pronunciation of the Aramaic: ישוע Yeshua.
- Thus, in modern Greek, Joshua is called "Jesus son of Naue" (τοῦ Ναυή) to differentiate him from Jesus.
- This is also true in some Slavic languages following the Eastern Orthodox tradition (e.g. "Иисус Навин", Iisús Navín, in Bulgarian, Serbian and Russian, but not Czech).
It's hard not to mention that Yermak had a flag similar to the one Pozharsky had. What a coincidence...
- The Armory Chamber has 3 blue banners of Yermak, under which he conquered the Siberian Khanate of Kuchum in 1582.
- Banner webs are more than 3 yards long (2 meters); one embroidered with the images of Christ and St. Michael, on the other two - a lion and a unicorn, ready for battle.
The Jericho Cap Helmet aka Çiçak
- Lobster-tailed Pot Helmet -
- The helmet was allegedly made for Michael of Russia (1596-1645).
- Most know it as the helmet of Alexander Nevsky (1221-1263)
- This helmet is also present on the first bas-relief image belonging to the Alexander Column.
- It's depicted twice there.. at the bottom, and over the breastplate of Alexis of Russia (1629-1676).
Simon says: The lobster-tailed pot helmet had an oriental origin, being derived from the Ottoman Turkish çiçak (pronounced 'chichak', Turkish – çiçek Çiçek means flower in Turkish which is attributed to the shape of the helmets top side) helmet, which developed in the 16th century.
- It was adopted by the Christian states of Europe in the early 17th century.
- The chichak was almost identical to the later European helmets – it had a forward projecting peak, sliding bar nasal, cheekpieces and neck guard; only its tendency to have a conical rather than rounded skull was distinctive.
- The European derivative of this helmet saw widespread use during the Thirty Years War when it became known as the zischägge, a Germanisation of the original Turkish name.
- Lobster-tailed pot helmet - Wikipedia
- I've seen this outline before -
- Estimates of military and civilian deaths range from 4.5 to 8 million, while up to 60% of the population may have died in some areas of Germany.
- Related conflicts: the Eighty Years' War, the War of the Mantuan Succession, the Franco-Spanish War, and the Portuguese Restoration War.
- War picture from the struggle of the Dutch against Spain, probably the siege of Ostend
Back to the Jericho Helmet
- Meanwhile: The lack of archaeological evidence have led archaeologists like William G. Dever to characterise the story of the fall of Jericho as "invented out of whole cloth".
- Scholars agree almost unanimously that the Book of Joshua holds little historical value.
Joshua and Moses, or Minin and Pozharsky?
Lithograph by J.G. Schreiner, c. 1840.
Source
The Three Crowns
On the Jericho Hat, also known as the helmet worn by Pozharsky, made for Michael of Russia, but named after Alexander Nevsky (Neufsky, Newsky), we have three crowns. To get a better idea of what crowns we are talking about, visit this link.Lithograph by J.G. Schreiner, c. 1840.
Source
The Three Crowns
- There are some differences between the museum version and the helmet you see below. What that means I'm not sure, because there is only one (that I know of) helmet with three crowns in existence. If you figure it out, please share.
What do these there crowns symbolize? Here is version #1.
- Crowns of Moscow, Casan and Astrakhan.
- 1698 Source.
- The word derives from Latin tyrannus, meaning "illegitimate ruler", and this in turn from the Greek τύραννος tyrannos "monarch, ruler of a polis"; tyrannos in its turn has a Pre-Greek origin, perhaps from Lydian.
Then we have our #2 version. That "Famous Tyrant" John Basilovitz (above) has to be our Ivan the Terrible.
- aka Ivan IV Vasilyevich (1530-1584)
- aka Ivan III Vasilyevich (1440-1505)
- #III was the grand father of #IV
I am not sure where Russians lost the third crown present on the Emblem of the Palaiologos Dynasty, but here is what the emblem looks like.
- In 1693, Franz Timmerman received the order to build merchant ships in Arkhangelsk and trade with Europe.
- He was told to display the two-headed eagle spread with wings, with three crowns over it.
Version #4 is my hypothesis. Three crowns on the helmet symbolize three kingdoms:
As far as I understand, we do not have any serious archaeological evidence of the events presented in the Bible.
- What if they are searching in all the wrong places?
- ...guided by some seriously messed up chronology.
Alexander Nevsky
I think there is a probability where our Alexander Nevsky and Joshua aka Jesus son of Naue were one and the same. Alexander Nevsky (same goes for Joshua, I guess) is a pretty questionable historical figure, but I believe there is a real individual hiding behind the PTB lies. As it stands, the reason he is "Nevsky" is because of the 1240 AD Battle of the Neva.- The existence of the battle is only known from Russian sources.
- There is no reference to a battle of the Neva in Swedish sources.
- The first source to mention the battle is the Novgorod First Chronicle from the 14th century.
- The earliest extant copy of the chronicle is dated to the second half of the 13th century.
- When did they find this "dated to..." copy?
- First printed in 1841.
- The Second Pskov Chronicle is represented only by the Synodal copy, which is a copy of a codex made in 1486 that condenses the texts of other chronicles and includes material not found elsewhere.
KD: So much for them history defining heroes... Nevsky, Minin and Pozharsky.
Geographical Names
Here we have one additional reason why figuring out the truth is so hard. Sometimes, in order to alter the history, they simply needed to get rid of a geographical name, and follow up with a few extra steps. Here is an example pertaining to our Alexander Nevsky.- Livonian campaign against Rus' was a military campaign that lasted from 1240 to 1242, and was carried out by the Teutonic Knights of the Livonian Order with the aim to conquer the lands of Pskov and Novgorod and convert them to Catholicism.
At the same time if our Livonia (we actually have two: northern and southern) was located at a different location, the entire meaning of the war changes. So does the historical narrative.
- As you can see, our city of Kazan was most likely located in Southern Livonia.
- That would mean that a person represented by Alexander Nevsky was not fighting dudes from the west.
- That would make it a war with the Khanate of Kazan
Geographical Names and Titles
- He had Italian rank of Generalissimo, was a Count of the Holy Roman Empire while being a Russian general in service of the Russian Empire.
- What kind of baloney is that? None of it makes sense.
- And then we have this Count of Rymnik. One would expect something Rome-related by now, but nope, not this time.
- The Battle of Rymnik on September 22, 1789 took place near Râmnicu Sărat (now in Romania), during the Russo-Turkish War of 1787–1792.
- The Russian general Alexander Suvorov, acting together with the Habsburg general Prince Josias of Coburg, attacked the main Ottoman army under Grand Vizier Cenaze Hasan Pasha.
- The result was a crushing Russo-Austrian victory.
- For this victory, Catherine the Great made Suvorov a count with the name "Rymniksky" in addition to his own name.
- Rymnik - is a city in Buzău County, Romania, in the historical region of Muntenia. It was first attested in a document of 1439, and raised to the rank of municipiu in 1994.
- In 1859 its population was 5707 people.
- In 1854 the city was almost destroyed by fire and was rebuilt.
- At least Joseph II gave him a decent title. Catherine the Great threw him under the bus with this Count Rymnik.
- It's like me being made a Count of Enumclaw.
- Well, may be not so bad, for Enumclaw has a bigger wikipage than this Râmnicu Sărat.
Question: what did Mr. Suvorov get his Rymnik title for?
- Version #1: For fighting at some village named Râmnicu Sărat.
- Version #2: For fighting at Rhymnic Mountains (vs. Tartary?), after which the mountains were renamed to Ural Mountains.
Names and Titles
I am not sure how we can be positive on anything historical, including names and titles. We have these Russian Czars named John Basileus, along with a whole bunch of other "Basileuses" out there. For Russian Czars like Ivan the Great and Ivan the Terrible, Basileus (per the narrative) means that their father's name was Basili (or Vasili, or something like that). Well, I'm not that sure any more.
Then we have the "Title issue".
- Basileus is a Greek term and title that has signified various types of monarchs in history.
- Basileus - Wikipedia
How about this "Roman-Basilides" stuff and the rest of the mumbo-jumbo?
Note: I almost forgot that Ivan the Great was also Ioannes Severus. Now take a look at this:
Back to 1812, etc.
The 1812 Fire of Moscow persisted from 14 to 18 September 1812 and all but destroyed the city. The Russian troops and most of the remaining residents had abandoned the city of Moscow on 14 September 1812 just ahead of French Emperor Napoleon's troops entering the city after the Battle of Borodino. Before leaving Moscow, Count Rostopchin is supposed to have given orders to the head of police (and released convicts) to have the Kremlin and major public buildings (including churches and monasteries) set on fire. During the following days the fires spread.
Could it be that our narrative compilers came up with multiple different scenarios for single devastating events? I think it could.
- Fire of Moscow (1547)
- Fire of Moscow (1571)
- Fires burned out much of the wooden city in 1626 and 1648.
KD summary: Ok, that should have been like three separate articles. I will try to summarize the above with this.
- I have hard time comprehending how some things are possible in a physical world with a linear time line.
- Thousands of physical "ancient" artifacts (especially Roman ones) were discovered after 1800. Barely any were discovered prior to 1800.
- The appearance of most does not support the notion of them spending thousands of years in the dirt.
- Our circa 1800 elite is dressed like if they were ancient Romans.
- Our 19th century monuments are predominantly "ancient" in nature.
- Our 19th century "Christian" architecture is nothing but some ancient Greek and Roman "Revival" BS.
- I think that this "ancient" style was present prior to 1770ish.
- Wars, Empires and World Historical Individuals were not nearly as numerous as they want us to believe.
- Between 475 AD and 2021 AD we only have 300-350 years of real time.
- The tech introduced after ~1850 AD was the tech present prior to 475 AD.
- According to my calculations, 475 AD was approximately 150-200 years before 1850 AD.
- "Napoleonic" wars happened many different times on paper, but only once in reality.
- This war was global, we just need to connect all simultaneous (and sometimes not) conflicts into one.
- Who were the enemies in this war? I think these bigger dudes fought each other.
- The smaller ones are us. We were probably used, but it was not our conflict.
- We need to figure out who Pugachev really was, and what the PTB are hiding behind the so-called Pugachev's Rebellion (1773-1775).
- There could be multiple other (spread out in time) historical names attached to the same character represented by Pugachev.
- The American Revolutionary War (1775-1783) was, imho, a part of the same event.
- The magnitude of such historical lies is hard to fathom. But... we need to remember them worlds "dreamed up" by the below individuals in a relatively short period of time:
