History of Criticism of Official History

Tonep

Active member
Messages
80
Likes
181
#1
I have been in and out of the rabbit at different points in my life. The last time was between 2012 and 2015. I was researching pretty much all the theories I would come across. Some of that stuff is really out there. I got tired of contemplating all the theories that couldn't be confirmed until I came across A. Fomenko. What caught me was his investigation of the records of celestial mechanics (i think that's the right term). That is something that can be confirmed. Through A. Fomenko I found newearth's channel and went down that rabbit hole for a while and thru her I somehow came to stolenhistory.org and went deeper into the rabbit hole. There are some really good articles on here.

This thread is just about what caused me to come back to the rabbit hole. The following is one of my favorite excerpts from my studies, it is the history of the criticism of the official story of the history of civilization (called Scaligerian chronology). For anyone new to this, I bet you didn't know Issac Newton disagreed with the official story of history.

————​

website: History of the New Chronology

The history of the new chronology and its development can be divided into three periods, albeit arbitrarily.

The first stage – the XVI-XX century, when various researchers periodically discovered major inconsistencies in the edifice of the Scaligerian chronology. We shall quote the names of some familiar scientists that dissented with the chronology of Scaliger-Petavius and reckoned that the real ancient and mediaeval chronology differed significantly.

De Arcilla – the XVI century, Professor of the Salamanca University, see Chron1, Chapter 1. The information on his chronological research is of a rather volatile nature, and it was only by accident that N. A. Morozov managed to learn of it. It is known merely that De Arcilla claimed "ancient" history to have been forged in the Middle Ages. However, we regrettably failed to have found any of his works. The Salamanca University could not give us any information about them, either.

Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727) – the great English scientist, physicist, and mathematician devoted a large part of his life to chronology and published a large volume entitled The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended. To which is Prefix'd, A Short Chronicle from the First Memory of Things in Europe, to the Conquest of Persia by Alexander the Great. See [1298]; more details in Chron1, Chapter 1.

Jean Hardouin (1646-1729) – eminent French scientist and author of a large number of works on philology, theology, history, archaeology, and numismatics. He was also Director of the French Royal Library, and wrote a few chronological works with sharp criticisms of the entire edifice of the Scaligerian chronology. He was of the opinion that most of the so-called "ancient artefacts" were either counterfeit, or belonged to a much more recent age. See details in Chron7, Appendix 3.

Peter Nikiforovich Krekshin (1684-1763) – the personal secretary of Peter the Great wrote a book criticizing the contemporary version of Roman history. It was "still fresh" in his day and age, and wasn't taken for granted the way it is today. See details in Chron4, Chapter 14:30.

Robert Baldauf – the German philologist of the late XIX – early XX century. Assistant professor at the Basel University and author of the four volumes entitled History and Criticisms ([1025:1]). He came to the conclusion that the "ancient" literary works were a lot more recent than one was accustomed to think, guided by philological considerations. Baldauf proved that those works were all mediaeval in their origins. See details in Chron7, Appendix 3.

Edwin Johnson (1842-1901) – English historian of the XIX century, criticized the Scaligerian chronology severely in his works ([1214] and [1215]), claiming that they needed to be truncated drastically. See details in Chron1, Chapter 1.

Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov (1854-1946) – a prominent Russian scientist and encyclopedist, made a breakthrough in chronological studies. He criticized the Scaligerian version of chronology and history extensively. He offered the concepts of several new natural scientific methods of analyzing chronology and introduced scientific approaches to chronology making the latter a science de facto. See details in Chron1, Chapter 1.

Wilhelm Kammeyer (late XIX century – 1959) – a German scientist and lawyer, developed a method of verifying the authenticity of ancient documents. He discovered nearly all of the ancient and early mediaeval Western European documents to have been either copied or forged in a more recent age. He came to the conclusion that both ancient and mediaeval history were falsified, and wrote several books on the topic.

Immanuel Velikovsky (1895-1979) – a prominent psychoanalyst of Russian origin lived and worked in Russia, the UK, Palestine, Germany, and the USA. He wrote a number of books on ancient history that concerned several contradictions and peculiarities of ancient history. He also made an attempt of explaining them in relation to the Catastrophism Theory. He is considered to be the founder of the "critical school" in chronology, but what he really did was try to protect the Scaligerian chronology from drastic changes, so his inclusion in the list of the founding fathers of the new chronology is rather arbitrary. We reckon that the fact of Velikovsky's works are much better known than the earlier and more detailed ones by N. A. Morozov, inhibited the development of the new chronology in the Western Europe of the XX century considerably. See details in Chron7, Appendix 3.

All in all, one has to state that the precariousness of the Scaligerian chronology was mentioned rather explicitly in the scientific works of the XVII-XIX century. The Scaligerian version of history was subject to extended criticisms, and the thesis of the global fabrication of ancient texts and artifacts was formulated. Nevertheless it came to pass that no one with the exception of N. A. Morozov managed to find a way of constructing a proven version of the correct chronology; even his version was hardly based on any substantial evidence, being incomplete and having inherited a number of substantial flaws from the chronology of Scaliger and Petavius.

The second stage – during the first half of the XX century. This stage should doubtlessly be linked to the name of N. A. Morozov. He was the first to have understood and formulated the fundamental idea that the Scaligerian chronology needed a complete revision, not just the "ante-mundane" part, but also its entire edifice up to the VI century a.d. N. A. Morozov had used a number of innovative natural scientific methods for chronological analysis and quoted a number of indisputable arguments for proving his brilliant idea. The publication of his main works on the revision of ancient history occurred in 1907-1932 ([542]-[544]). However, he held the erroneous opinion that post-VI century chronology was basically correct. See details in Chron1, Chapter 1:3.

The third stage – being the period of 1945-1973, can be characterized as one of "deliberate muting". The historical science tries to cast the chronological research of N. A. Morozov and his predecessors into oblivion. The chronological discussions in Russia cease altogether, and an "alienation zone" of sorts is created around N. A. Morozov's works on chronology, whereas in the West, the debate becomes circular and doesn't venture outside I. Velikovsky's hypothesis of "Catastrophism".
The fourth stage – which was the period of 1973-1980, commenced in 1973, when A. T. Fomenko, faculty member of the Department of Mathematics and Mechanics of the Moscow State University, was researching several problems related to celestial mechanics. He had noticed the 1972 article of the American astrophysicist Robert Newton ([1303]), where the latter described a strange leap in lunar acceleration, and the so-called parameter D". The leap occurred around the X century a.d. Using
the Scaligerian datings of the writings that make reference to lunar and solar eclipses, R. Newton computed lunar acceleration as a time function on the interval of the I-XX century a.d. The leap in question comprises an entire mathematical order (!), and cannot be explained by the gravitational theory in any way. It was the issue of the discussion organized by the Royal Society of London and the British Academy of Sciences in 1972, and one that had spawned major controversy ([1453]). The discussion failed to elucidate the situation in any way, and so R. Newton suggested attributing the leap to certain mysterious extra-gravitational forces in the Earth-Moon system.
A. T. Fomenko noted that all the attempts of explaining the gap in the behaviour of D" failed to raise the issue of the veracity of the eclipse datings that were the actual basis for R. Newton's calculations. However, despite the fact that A. T. Fomenko was well outside the paradigm of historical research back in the day, he had heard that N. A. Morozov offered some new datings of the "ancient" eclipses in his work entitled Christ, published in 1924-1932. It has to be said that A. T. Fomenko's initial attitude towards N. A. Morozov's works was rather sceptical and based on whatever random information he had received on the subjects during informal discussions with fellow faculty members. Nevertheless, having overcome his scepticism, A. T. Fomenko unearthed an astronomical table by N. A. Morozov that contained the new datings and performed a new calculation of the parameter D" using the same algorithm offered by R. Newton. He was amazed to have discovered the disappearance of the mysterious leap and the transformation of the D" diagram into an even, practically horizontal line. A. T. Fomenko's work on the topic was published in 1980 ([883]).
However, the elimination of the enigma from celestial mechanics led to another question of paramount importance: what was one supposed to do with the chronology of the ancient times in this case? The eclipse dates were supposed to be evidentially linked to a vast array of historical materials. Since N. A. Morozov's works helped to solve a complex celestial mechanics problem, A. T. Fomenko decided to study them in more detail. The only professor from the MSU Department of Mathematics and Mechanics to have had Morozov's Christ, already a bibliographical curiosity by that time, in his possession, was M. M. Postnikov. He was interested in N. A. Morozov's research and occasionally told his colleagues about it. In 1974, A. T. Fomenko approached M. M. Postnikov with the suggestion of reading a series of introductory lectures on N. A. Morozov's works. M. M. Postnikov had acquiesced after a brief hesitation, and read five lectures for a group of mathematicians that worked in the MSU Department of Mathematics and Mechanics later the same year.

As a result, a group of mathematicians developed an interest in chronological problems, regarding them from the point of view of applied mathematics. It became obvious that the complexity of this issue demanded the development of new independent methods of dating. Hence the main focus in 1973-1980 was on developing methods of analyzing historical texts that were based on mathematical statistics, a number of which was proposed and formulated by A. T. Fomenko in 1975-1979. They allowed for the elucidation of the global picture of chronological misdatings in Scaliger's version and elimination. More specifically, A. T. Fomenko had discovered three important chronological shifts, of roughly 333 years, 1053, and 1800 years respectively. These shifts are only inherent to the erroneous chronology of Scaliger-Petavius, and have nothing to do with the correct one. It turned out that "the Scaligerian textbook" was compiled from four copies of one and the same brief chronicle.

————​

I'm trying to find some info on ancient records of the stars, eclipses, etc. If anyone has any links please link me up.
 

Magnetic

Well-known member
Messages
87
Likes
266
#4
I have been in and out of the rabbit at different points in my life. The last time was between 2012 and 2015. I was researching pretty much all the theories I would come across. Some of that stuff is really out there. I got tired of contemplating all the theories that couldn't be confirmed until I came across A. Fomenko. What caught me was his investigation of the records of celestial mechanics (i think that's the right term). That is something that can be confirmed. Through A. Fomenko I found newearth's channel and went down that rabbit hole for a while and thru her I somehow came to stolenhistory.org and went deeper into the rabbit hole. There are some really good articles on here.

This thread is just about what caused me to come back to the rabbit hole. The following is one of my favorite excerpts from my studies, it is the history of the criticism of the official story of the history of civilization (called Scaligerian chronology). For anyone new to this, I bet you didn't know Issac Newton disagreed with the official story of history.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

website: History of the New Chronology

The history of the new chronology and its development can be divided into three periods, albeit arbitrarily.

The first stage – the XVI-XX century, when various researchers periodically discovered major inconsistencies in the edifice of the Scaligerian chronology. We shall quote the names of some familiar scientists that dissented with the chronology of Scaliger-Petavius and reckoned that the real ancient and mediaeval chronology differed significantly.

De Arcilla – the XVI century, Professor of the Salamanca University, see Chron1, Chapter 1. The information on his chronological research is of a rather volatile nature, and it was only by accident that N. A. Morozov managed to learn of it. It is known merely that De Arcilla claimed "ancient" history to have been forged in the Middle Ages. However, we regrettably failed to have found any of his works. The Salamanca University could not give us any information about them, either.

Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727) – the great English scientist, physicist, and mathematician devoted a large part of his life to chronology and published a large volume entitled The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended. To which is Prefix'd, A Short Chronicle from the First Memory of Things in Europe, to the Conquest of Persia by Alexander the Great. See [1298]; more details in Chron1, Chapter 1.

Jean Hardouin (1646-1729) – eminent French scientist and author of a large number of works on philology, theology, history, archaeology, and numismatics. He was also Director of the French Royal Library, and wrote a few chronological works with sharp criticisms of the entire edifice of the Scaligerian chronology. He was of the opinion that most of the so-called "ancient artefacts" were either counterfeit, or belonged to a much more recent age. See details in Chron7, Appendix 3.

Peter Nikiforovich Krekshin (1684-1763) – the personal secretary of Peter the Great wrote a book criticizing the contemporary version of Roman history. It was "still fresh" in his day and age, and wasn't taken for granted the way it is today. See details in Chron4, Chapter 14:30.

Robert Baldauf – the German philologist of the late XIX – early XX century. Assistant professor at the Basel University and author of the four volumes entitled History and Criticisms ([1025:1]). He came to the conclusion that the "ancient" literary works were a lot more recent than one was accustomed to think, guided by philological considerations. Baldauf proved that those works were all mediaeval in their origins. See details in Chron7, Appendix 3.

Edwin Johnson (1842-1901) – English historian of the XIX century, criticized the Scaligerian chronology severely in his works ([1214] and [1215]), claiming that they needed to be truncated drastically. See details in Chron1, Chapter 1.

Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov (1854-1946) – a prominent Russian scientist and encyclopedist, made a breakthrough in chronological studies. He criticized the Scaligerian version of chronology and history extensively. He offered the concepts of several new natural scientific methods of analyzing chronology and introduced scientific approaches to chronology making the latter a science de facto. See details in Chron1, Chapter 1.

Wilhelm Kammeyer (late XIX century – 1959) – a German scientist and lawyer, developed a method of verifying the authenticity of ancient documents. He discovered nearly all of the ancient and early mediaeval Western European documents to have been either copied or forged in a more recent age. He came to the conclusion that both ancient and mediaeval history were falsified, and wrote several books on the topic.

Immanuel Velikovsky (1895-1979) – a prominent psychoanalyst of Russian origin lived and worked in Russia, the UK, Palestine, Germany, and the USA. He wrote a number of books on ancient history that concerned several contradictions and peculiarities of ancient history. He also made an attempt of explaining them in relation to the Catastrophism Theory. He is considered to be the founder of the "critical school" in chronology, but what he really did was try to protect the Scaligerian chronology from drastic changes, so his inclusion in the list of the founding fathers of the new chronology is rather arbitrary. We reckon that the fact of Velikovsky's works are much better known than the earlier and more detailed ones by N. A. Morozov, inhibited the development of the new chronology in the Western Europe of the XX century considerably. See details in Chron7, Appendix 3.

All in all, one has to state that the precariousness of the Scaligerian chronology was mentioned rather explicitly in the scientific works of the XVII-XIX century. The Scaligerian version of history was subject to extended criticisms, and the thesis of the global fabrication of ancient texts and artifacts was formulated. Nevertheless it came to pass that no one with the exception of N. A. Morozov managed to find a way of constructing a proven version of the correct chronology; even his version was hardly based on any substantial evidence, being incomplete and having inherited a number of substantial flaws from the chronology of Scaliger and Petavius.

The second stage – during the first half of the XX century. This stage should doubtlessly be linked to the name of N. A. Morozov. He was the first to have understood and formulated the fundamental idea that the Scaligerian chronology needed a complete revision, not just the "ante-mundane" part, but also its entire edifice up to the VI century a.d. N. A. Morozov had used a number of innovative natural scientific methods for chronological analysis and quoted a number of indisputable arguments for proving his brilliant idea. The publication of his main works on the revision of ancient history occurred in 1907-1932 ([542]-[544]). However, he held the erroneous opinion that post-VI century chronology was basically correct. See details in Chron1, Chapter 1:3.

The third stage – being the period of 1945-1973, can be characterized as one of "deliberate muting". The historical science tries to cast the chronological research of N. A. Morozov and his predecessors into oblivion. The chronological discussions in Russia cease altogether, and an "alienation zone" of sorts is created around N. A. Morozov's works on chronology, whereas in the West, the debate becomes circular and doesn't venture outside I. Velikovsky's hypothesis of "Catastrophism".
The fourth stage – which was the period of 1973-1980, commenced in 1973, when A. T. Fomenko, faculty member of the Department of Mathematics and Mechanics of the Moscow State University, was researching several problems related to celestial mechanics. He had noticed the 1972 article of the American astrophysicist Robert Newton ([1303]), where the latter described a strange leap in lunar acceleration, and the so-called parameter D". The leap occurred around the X century a.d. Using
the Scaligerian datings of the writings that make reference to lunar and solar eclipses, R. Newton computed lunar acceleration as a time function on the interval of the I-XX century a.d. The leap in question comprises an entire mathematical order (!), and cannot be explained by the gravitational theory in any way. It was the issue of the discussion organized by the Royal Society of London and the British Academy of Sciences in 1972, and one that had spawned major controversy ([1453]). The discussion failed to elucidate the situation in any way, and so R. Newton suggested attributing the leap to certain mysterious extra-gravitational forces in the Earth-Moon system.
A. T. Fomenko noted that all the attempts of explaining the gap in the behaviour of D" failed to raise the issue of the veracity of the eclipse datings that were the actual basis for R. Newton's calculations. However, despite the fact that A. T. Fomenko was well outside the paradigm of historical research back in the day, he had heard that N. A. Morozov offered some new datings of the "ancient" eclipses in his work entitled Christ, published in 1924-1932. It has to be said that A. T. Fomenko's initial attitude towards N. A. Morozov's works was rather sceptical and based on whatever random information he had received on the subjects during informal discussions with fellow faculty members. Nevertheless, having overcome his scepticism, A. T. Fomenko unearthed an astronomical table by N. A. Morozov that contained the new datings and performed a new calculation of the parameter D" using the same algorithm offered by R. Newton. He was amazed to have discovered the disappearance of the mysterious leap and the transformation of the D" diagram into an even, practically horizontal line. A. T. Fomenko's work on the topic was published in 1980 ([883]).
However, the elimination of the enigma from celestial mechanics led to another question of paramount importance: what was one supposed to do with the chronology of the ancient times in this case? The eclipse dates were supposed to be evidentially linked to a vast array of historical materials. Since N. A. Morozov's works helped to solve a complex celestial mechanics problem, A. T. Fomenko decided to study them in more detail. The only professor from the MSU Department of Mathematics and Mechanics to have had Morozov's Christ, already a bibliographical curiosity by that time, in his possession, was M. M. Postnikov. He was interested in N. A. Morozov's research and occasionally told his colleagues about it. In 1974, A. T. Fomenko approached M. M. Postnikov with the suggestion of reading a series of introductory lectures on N. A. Morozov's works. M. M. Postnikov had acquiesced after a brief hesitation, and read five lectures for a group of mathematicians that worked in the MSU Department of Mathematics and Mechanics later the same year.

As a result, a group of mathematicians developed an interest in chronological problems, regarding them from the point of view of applied mathematics. It became obvious that the complexity of this issue demanded the development of new independent methods of dating. Hence the main focus in 1973-1980 was on developing methods of analyzing historical texts that were based on mathematical statistics, a number of which was proposed and formulated by A. T. Fomenko in 1975-1979. They allowed for the elucidation of the global picture of chronological misdatings in Scaliger's version and elimination. More specifically, A. T. Fomenko had discovered three important chronological shifts, of roughly 333 years, 1053, and 1800 years respectively. These shifts are only inherent to the erroneous chronology of Scaliger-Petavius, and have nothing to do with the correct one. It turned out that "the Scaligerian textbook" was compiled from four copies of one and the same brief chronicle.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I'm trying to find some info on ancient records of the stars, eclipses, etc. If anyone has any links please link me up.
Fomenko and crew have a Dendera zodiac which he dated to the mid 1750's whereas the wiki version of reality dating is 51 BC.
Dendera zodiac - Wikipedia
Fomenko downplays the "catastrophe" meme and makes up lame rationales for the disasters. He also was a high ranking person in the Soviet hierarchy in the sciences so IMHO he and his group give you some of the truth on chronology but then muddies the waters about disasters.
 
OP
OP
Tonep

Tonep

Active member
Messages
80
Likes
181
#5
Fomenko and crew have a Dendera zodiac which he dated to the mid 1750's whereas the wiki version of reality dating is 51 BC.
Dendera zodiac - Wikipedia
Fomenko downplays the "catastrophe" meme and makes up lame rationales for the disasters. He also was a high ranking person in the Soviet hierarchy in the sciences so IMHO he and his group give you some of the truth on chronology but then muddies the waters about disasters.
Interesting, so u think he is part of the PTB?
 

GroundhogLfe

Well-known member
Messages
67
Likes
313
#6
Interesting, so u think he is part of the PTB?
I know you did not ask me, but my interpretation is that his mathematical work on chronology as in mathematical terms is spot on. If we are to believe modern physics and science as we know it, then we know this could not have happened, the moon simply cannot change it's orbital speed and then just return to normal at one point. This is why I believe it to be absolutely true that the chronology we are represented is wrong.

Most mathematically oriented people are not very good on figuring out social problems and motivations however and coming from the background he has he might have had some flaws on the area and if we are to stretch it perhaps even have demands by Soviets to promote a Soviet / Russian view on the matter for it's people.

I believe the mathematicians work is correct and the extra years have simply been added to early medieval age to extend the Egyptian and Greek civilizations farther back in time, becoming these dark ages. So while his work surely has great sources there I am not taking his whole explanation of the new chronology as a face value. His interpretation on history is to be reviewed full and used as a source material for ideas.

I do not believe he was part of TPB, but making an honest mans work towards a subject he found most interesting with a small chance of having had some pressure from the Soviets to tie it up as it ended up being.
 
Last edited:

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
2,798
Likes
8,266
#7
Fomenko will not speculate on catastrophes, because he does not appear to know for sure. This type of info is most likely above his level.

He is a very respected mathematician, but that’s about it. There are many smart scientists out there. The only reason we know his name is because of the chronology.
 

UnusualBean

Well-known member
Messages
94
Likes
324
#8
^ ^I agree entirely. I think Fomenko's probably just a nerd who's excited by the math of the whole thing, but not really that interested in the catastrophe and political aspects :geek:

I've noticed that Russia seems to be on the fence about whether to cooperate with the global narrative, which is probably the main reason for all the anti-Russia propaganda that's been around for our entire lives (and the main reason Fomenko has been allowed to publish what he has). The Russian authorities have been a little lax with their historical revisionism, and a lot of the information available about this entire subject comes from Russian sources.

Of course, it's not just Russia. I think it's a good idea to pay close attention to every country that America hates now or has hated in the past, but that's branching out into a different topic now.
 
OP
OP
Tonep

Tonep

Active member
Messages
80
Likes
181
#9
I know you did not ask me, but my interpretation is that his mathematical work on chronology as in mathematical terms is spot on. If we are to believe modern physics and science as we know it, then we know this could not have happened, the moon simply cannot change it's orbital speed and then just return to normal at one point. This is why I believe it to be absolutely true that the chronology we are represented is wrong.

Most mathematically oriented people are not very good on figuring out social problems and motivations however and coming from the background he has he might have had some flaws on the area and if we are to stretch it perhaps even have demands by Soviets to promote a Soviet / Russian view on the matter for it's people.

I believe the mathematicians work is correct and the extra years have simply been added to early medieval age to extend the Egyptian and Greek civilizations farther back in time, becoming these dark ages. So while his work surely has great sources there I am not taking his whole explanation of the new chronology as a face value. His interpretation on history is to be reviewed full and used as a source material.

I do not believe he was part of TPB, but making an honest mans work towards a subject he found most interesting with a small chance of having had some pressure from the Soviets to tie it up as it ended up being.
That was a well-rounded synopsis, a perfect answer. I have a hard time believing somebody who put so much time into this kind of research could be a part of the ptb
Post automatically merged:

Fomenko will not speculate on catastrophes, because he does not appear to know for sure. This type of info is most likely above his level.

He is a very respected mathematician, but that’s about it. There are many smart scientists out there. The only reason we know his name is because of the chronology.
Its funny to me how in this world we living in, the smartest people and the people in positions of power can be the most deluded(i think thats the right word). Not saying fomenko was deluded but he doesnt have the complete picture.

Also makes me wonder who really is in control. Im almost sure the pope is one of them but really i dont know.
Post automatically merged:

^ ^I agree entirely. I think Fomenko's probably just a nerd who's excited by the math of the whole thing, but not really that interested in the catastrophe and political aspects :geek:

I've noticed that Russia seems to be on the fence about whether to cooperate with the global narrative, which is probably the main reason for all the anti-Russia propaganda that's been around for our entire lives (and the main reason Fomenko has been allowed to publish what he has). The Russian authorities have been a little lax with their historical revisionism, and a lot of the information available about this entire subject comes from Russian sources.

Of course, it's not just Russia. I think it's a good idea to pay close attention to every country that America hates now or has hated in the past, but that's branching out into a different topic now.
I was wondering why all this was coming out of russia. thanks for the info.
 
Last edited:

Paracelsus

Well-known member
Messages
163
Likes
601
#10
@Tonep,
You've got to do the legwork yourself to know how to do the legwork.

Ptolemy (Author of Ptolemy's Almagest)
Claudius Ptolemy's Almagest is a great place to start with learning basic Astrology. Being that Ptolemy was of the Alexandrian school, the study of the stars truly meant study of the stars. Not the bastardized NASA astronomy that we end up with today.
 
OP
OP
Tonep

Tonep

Active member
Messages
80
Likes
181
#11
@Tonep,
You've got to do the legwork yourself to know how to do the legwork.

Ptolemy (Author of Ptolemy's Almagest)
Claudius Ptolemy's Almagest is a great place to start with learning basic Astrology. Being that Ptolemy was of the Alexandrian school, the study of the stars truly meant study of the stars. Not the bastardized NASA astronomy that we end up with today.
u are definitely right about legwork. i was at the library reading fomenkos 3rd volume. it was the first time i had heard of the almagest. fomenko listed just the table of contents of and it bout gave me a brain fart. very math heavy. legwork indeed. im still trying to put my own timeline together...omg
 

Whaduzitake

New member
Messages
13
Likes
34
#12
This is a great post! Well written and concise, I really enjoyed it. I, too, have discovered the NewEarth channel on youtube! It's fun to watch, as well as the mud flood theories. I'm pretty sure google knew I was watching it and that is how I somehow landed on this site. But that's another subject :)

It is really interesting the Russians seem to keep popping up in this stuff. I have to wonder if they are not more open minded to some of the more "far out" ideas than we are in the West, or if, as some have hinted, they aren't getting some pressure from their ptb.
 

Silvanus777

Well-known member
Messages
61
Likes
367
#13
@Tonep : Great summary, thanks!

@All: On the topic of astronomical datings turning out stunning actual dates:

Just yesterday I was revisiting Fomenko & Nosovskiy's astronomical interpretation and dating of the Book of Revelation / Apocalypse of John.
To all who haven't already, I really recommend reading his full chapter on the subject available HERE.

Fomenko et al date the (writing of the) apocalypse to the year 1486 and also state that the actual advent of the apocalyptic plagues and disasters etc. was popularly expected for no other year than 1492! This seems highly relevant to our theorizing about a possible 15th century cataclysm!

I read the Book of Revelation in full again yesterday as well, to refresh my memory. And my word, I don't know how familiar most of you guys are with the sequence of catastrophic events described as a vision of John the Divine in it, but a lot what is described in there could as well be stages of the global disaster we are looking to pin down. All happening in rather quick succession as one connected event stretching out over only a few years maybe, OR playing out over several centuries. Both scenarios could be possible.

Does anyone already have an opinion on this? I would love to hear what you guys think about this 1492 Apocalypse pinned down by Fomenko et al!

That should have it's own thread tho... Or does a suitable on for this specific question already exist. Please help me out, you guys. ;)

Question to all: If it hasn't been done yet, would anyone like me to look at the Book of Revelation narrative a bit deeper in a thread, in the light of our general cataclysm(s) hypothesis? Maybe compare it to historic events within the last 500-600 years? I was really pumped yesterday and tempted to start looking deeper into the matter, but if there's general interest I would dive into it and present my results when I'm done in a thread! :giggle:
 

Effie

Member
Messages
13
Likes
26
#15
@Tonep :
If it hasn't been done yet, would anyone like me to look at the Book of Revelation narrative a bit deeper in a thread, in the light of our general cataclysm(s) hypothesis?
This is what I've been looking at for awhile.

"The revelation from Jesus the Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place."

On a base reading it implies that these terrible disasters were imminent. Here is one that the map changes may illustrate:

“And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.”

While religionists await some future event, is it possible that these things have already taken place? When I have brought this up, they question where that leaves men today according to this ancient prophecy. It is noteworthy that John indicates a period of a 1,000 years would follow the world cataclysm leading up to a final destruction. According to Formenko and others, how much time has been added to the timeline? Is it possible that this phantom millennium has been used to conceal the prophetic period we are currently living in, soon drawing to an epic close?

I have more to share; perhaps you can start a new topic for research of this kind.
 
OP
OP
Tonep

Tonep

Active member
Messages
80
Likes
181
#16
@Tonep : Great summary, thanks!

@All: On the topic of astronomical datings turning out stunning actual dates:

Just yesterday I was revisiting Fomenko & Nosovskiy's astronomical interpretation and dating of the Book of Revelation / Apocalypse of John.
To all who haven't already, I really recommend reading his full chapter on the subject available HERE.

Fomenko et al date the (writing of the) apocalypse to the year 1486 and also state that the actual advent of the apocalyptic plagues and disasters etc. was popularly expected for no other year than 1492! This seems highly relevant to our theorizing about a possible 15th century cataclysm!

I read the Book of Revelation in full again yesterday as well, to refresh my memory. And my word, I don't know how familiar most of you guys are with the sequence of catastrophic events described as a vision of John the Divine in it, but a lot what is described in there could as well be stages of the global disaster we are looking to pin down. All happening in rather quick succession as one connected event stretching out over only a few years maybe, OR playing out over several centuries. Both scenarios could be possible.

Does anyone already have an opinion on this? I would love to hear what you guys think about this 1492 Apocalypse pinned down by Fomenko et al!

That should have it's own thread tho... Or does a suitable on for this specific question already exist. Please help me out, you guys. ;)

Question to all: If it hasn't been done yet, would anyone like me to look at the Book of Revelation narrative a bit deeper in a thread, in the light of our general cataclysm(s) hypothesis? Maybe compare it to historic events within the last 500-600 years? I was really pumped yesterday and tempted to start looking deeper into the matter, but if there's general interest I would dive into it and present my results when I'm done in a thread! :giggle:
Yes yes yes! Please do a thread on this and tag me in it. When i read your comment the other day it almost blew my mind. I have been thinking about it ever since. I wanted to respond that day but i been doing a lil partying lately and i have a flip phone and it sucks trying to type all these words on my phone.

I might read revelations tonight. Ive never been a fan of that book but after reading your words and the other theories on this forum i view it in a whole new light.
 

WildFire2000

Well-known member
Messages
88
Likes
406
#17
The issue most people will have accepting that the book of Revelations has already past, is that we would be living in the 1,000 year period where God's true church is supposed to be established. People are supposedly being resurrected to finish their 'race' or journey before either being given eternal life on Earth or being judged to die. The TRUE church would be available, teaching people, so that no one that anyone that was truly interested in making it would be able to find the truth. If we're in that 1,000 year period now, the Dragon is supposed to have been cast into the bottomless pit, unable to affect Earth or it's people during this time frame, so that the 'counter force' of evil on society is reduced. That doesn't seem to be occurring here, given how screwed up our world is.

I'll read it with an open mind, but I'm just letting you know, as someone that was taught quite a bit about the future from Revelations, it doesn't fit with the commonly accepted interpretations.
 

GroundhogLfe

Well-known member
Messages
67
Likes
313
#18
Prophecies are dangerous as when enough people truly believe in them, the believers might help them self-manifest. Like with "the wicked will inherit the earth" I say BS, let's rather just start saying that they won't and I believe we'll be seeing a different kind of result. So my revelation says that the wicked will fall back down where they came from unless they find the will within to work upon themselves.

I too have heard that revelations were related to the 1492 events and that regarding some astronomical information that it would have been written in the 15th century. Personally I think the revelations are mostly bogus just to instill some fear to people or written at least partially by a very fearful man, but I too would be interested to hear some interpretations on the revelations related to possible past events. The use for revelations could've been a great tool for converting new people to the religion when their nation has just been hit by wars and plagues etc. Especially at the expected time on the American natives and how they might have been compelled to believe that the religion preached upon them is true as was evident by what was going on.

As a sidestep from here, if we go to religious events, one weird vision regarding me having was on being in a deathbed as a Cathar. My uncle said to me there that I must do a fast and can only drink water. He continued and said something about me dying like "you are dying anyways, this is the means in attempt to save you". I did agree to try that, but eventually after days of doing it became berserk demanding for food and remember feeling how I was like burning within and remember the look on other people's faces. Ultimately I did not have the strength to proceed with it, as it wasn't truly my own will from my own understanding why I had to do it. When I failed to do so and demanded some food my uncle told me about two gods. That how the one going in to the future will not a very nice one, he also said that we won't know will you ever be able to come back from there, I guess he was implying on going in to the future in rebirths. This gives me a deja vu regarding another vision of mine regarding a native american saying something along the same line that we won't know will you ever be able to come back when sent me onwards on a vision quest or something a like.

We know the Catholics had their crusade to end the Cathars as they were considered dangerous with their knowledge and way of living. Inspired by that vision I've found the need to study the possible links from Cathars even as far up to Jainism where you also perform a fast to the death to receive a full purification. History says the Cathars moved from eastern Europe to the area of France but I'm going for a look for that perhaps it can be even traced farther back and farther to the east where Jainism was practised. We pretty much know the current official chronology of this world's history is **** so I'll rather focus on the links between certain faiths as a beginning to find enough evidence can we find enough common ground, perhaps some stirring foundings can be made. But for me now there's just too much to study and go through, the list is immensive so all this is on stasis for me as sometimes you just need some time off to recharge.

Also because of this vision I've made my decision to make an attempt on that full spiritual purification when being closer to death in old age etc. I've been practising fasting only with water for some days occasionally for a couple of years now and as we're speaking I'm currently on the end of my second day.
 
Last edited:

Effie

Member
Messages
13
Likes
26
#19
People are supposedly being resurrected to finish their 'race' or journey before either being given eternal life on Earth or being judged to die.
"(The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.)" - Rev 20:5

An objective look at Revelation is warranted. One that does not rely on the myriad of interpretations handed down by religionists over the ages. Understandably some are not able to go there or question what they hold dear. But then again, most accept the history of the world as taught.
 

Silvanus777

Well-known member
Messages
61
Likes
367
#20
The issue most people will have accepting that the book of Revelations has already past, is that we would be living in the 1,000 year period where God's true church is supposed to be established.
That doesn't seem to be occurring here, given how screwed up our world is.
I fully agree to your notions, WildFire2000, and it is a conundrum to me.

At the same time, both Jesus and John the Revelator talk about imminent and "soon to come events". I'm afraid, nobody who believes in scripture as the word of God can hide from Jesus' words when he says "this generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished" (Mt 24:34). To me, words have clear meanings, especially in holy scripture, and arguing about special meanings of "generation" in this case I for one can't really accept. I am not a bible scholar either, but what if the part of apocalytic events announced in the Olivet discourse (Matthew 24) have indeed come to pass within the generation, but the full extent of the Revelation of John "narrative" would be still ongoing? Hence the absence of Christ as king and his kingdom on earth and the obviously depressing and screwed up state of the world at present? Don't really know myself to be honest.

I am sorry if anyone is annoyed by the biblical/"religious talk. It's not my intention and more aimed at to those of christian persuasion.

That being said, could we somehow move the Revelation/Apocalypse part of this thread over to a new one dedicated to this specific topic?
@Korben Dallas, could you help out here (in your role as administrator I mean)?

Seeing that I have to take care of some real life things as well these days, I don't know how soon I could provide any sort of tolerably well-done and useful write-up or breakdown of events in the Apocalypse of John, and I'd rather chime in to an existing discussion thread with it once I have something substantial and worth sharing.
 
Top