My thoughts on Chronology 1 by Anatoliy Fomenko

mythstifieD

Well-known member
Messages
187
Likes
665
#1
Can you believe it? I started on page one and I just swiped to the side and found myself at the bibliography! I did it! I read 500 pages of some of the most intriguing analysis of ancient history I never thought possible.

At times it was intriguing, sometimes a little boring, but other times enraging. Intriguing because dudes got game, holy moly does this guy dig deep and wide; boring for almost the same reason, he's a statistician at heart and sometimes it shows, but I fully respect him for it and am proud to say I even followed along with his simple and complex analysis and techniques; enraged because, well.. Ok this needs it's own paragraph!

fomenko_anatoly-1.jpg

I'm an honest seeker, I fully believe I'm Sagans maxim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I enjoy dabbling in the extreme ideas but always try to balance myself. I must say, there was no balance to be found. When I tried to find a skeptic or two who would honestly debunk this, I found garbage. Fomenko's bibliography is 100 pages long, and most "skeptics" just make it seem like some Russian appropriation of western culture, funded and encouraged by the likes of everyone's favorite boogieman Putin. You can't just dismiss THOUSANDS of pages of INTENSE research with such dismissing notions, and it just goes to show that the modern skeptic community isn't actually interested in being skeptical about everything. In fact, more and more I realize they're actually just fact checkers for the status quo (in case you're wondering this critique is aimed at someone I used to respect, Brian Dunning of Skeptoid "fame") . I found this one guy on YouTube, I can't remember his name but is apparently a popular history populist, who hasn't even READ Fomenko goes on and on for several hours, sitting in lawn chairs with his friend, talking about how history just can't be wrong. The fact that he hasn't read Fomenko shows because his main argument is that, "Many other chronologiers have come after Scaliger and they concur with that chronology"... Facepalm! That's Fomenko's point, Scaliger was the most prominent, earliest of the "consentual chronology" as Fomenko puts it. If you want to keep your job, you BETTER AGREE.

Ok, I need another paragraph for my rage. I'm also mad because I think Fomenko might actually be right, and that makes me furious. Can you believe it? It's not 2018. If we're to go by the nativity of Jesus, then it's not even 1000ad yet. That's crazy. But I'm most mad because in order to make Scaligerian chronology to fit, they pushed many symbols and ideas back in time, removing to coincidence any similarities that otherwise seem so obvious. I used to think the destruction of the library of Alexandria led to a world wide ignorance that plunged us nearly back into the stone age. I'm not particularly religious, but most of my atheistic tendencies are because the timeline of Christianity was goofy. Why is Jesus so darn similar to all these other religions? Especially spread throughout the ages? But what if they were spread at the same time, and the only reason it differs is because the culture that adopted it tweaked the story to their understanding. Jesus, Osiris, Buddha, Krishna, Dionysus and Mithras were all literally the same "person", literally from the exact same time.

It was really intriguing to hear the theory about Christianity being a Dionysus sex cult. Or Mithrism being merely a different aspect of Christianity, not separated by hundreds of years.

The most intriguing proofs was how he scientifically prooved the exact date of "ancient" eclipses being located actually in the 1100-1200s. Or how the biblical judges, Roman Caesars, and Byzantine Kings all seem to have the exact same length of rule, per ruler, IN ORDER. Yes, some of the details differ a bit (obviously, heck the names are different even), but the actual length of rule is a give away that the timeline was reflected not once, not twice but sometimes thrice and frice (? Is that a word?)

I have Chronology 2 queued up. Here I go!

Please share any of your thoughts about Fomenko, international man of new history.
 

sonoman

Well-known member
Messages
186
Likes
395
#2
I'll have what he's having please. Fomenko's work is unmatched on the subject of history IMO

Ive been using audiobooks/readings as background music:


I dont care alot for the commentary added by this reader as I dont share his beliefs but I appreciate him for doing it and occasionally I learn some new ideas from him outside of Fomenkos work that is interesting and worth further research. he talks very slow so I speed it upto 1.5x

also A. T. Fomenko and G. V. Nosovsky's book "How It Was In Reality", which is just a read.


I really like Jacob Duellman's research on furthering some of the subjects Fomenko just touches on:


he is an Ace researcher! absolutely rips Scaiger to sheds! leaving no doubts that him and his chronology is wholly corrupt and completely fraudulent.

every sincere history buff should get on the Fomenko train else nothing adds up.

p.s. not surprisingly, wiki has more criticism than not on Fomenko New Chronology (Fomenko) - Wikipedia

but I did see this tidbit that Jan Irvin and Jacob had mentioned in one of their shows:
Unlike other popular conspiracy theories New Chronology is not anti-semitic per se, but it contains claims that may be unwelcome by Jewish communities like that the Old Testament is newer than the New Testament, placing Jerusalem in Constantinople and projecting stereotypes of Jews by proposing that Jews originate from bankers in the Russian Horde that adopted the religion of Judaism, itself a derivative of Christianity and not the other way round.
 
Last edited:

tupperaware

Well-known member
Messages
96
Likes
265
#3
I like reading the Fomenko books but wish he would take a chapter or two to elaborate on some key concepts like the ridiculous names given to many historical figures he points out in passing, like some kind of in joke twisted sideways and then patted dry. Names like

PTOLEMY
and
Charlemagne


Charle + magne
but "magne" is strictly Magne (given name) - Wikipedia Norwegian. I dug this oddity up in a couple of minutes. Magne (surname) - Wikipedia still does not add up even in French.

He is a brilliant topologist and should start hiring experts in fields like Linguistics and Anthropology to penetrate the historical debauchery more deeply.

He needs to start putting more meat on the bones of his revised history. Great job so far.
 

freezetime26

Active member
Messages
55
Likes
152
#4
I like reading the Fomenko books but wish he would take a chapter or two to elaborate on some key concepts like the ridiculous names given to many historical figures he points out in passing, like some kind of in joke twisted sideways and then patted dry. Names like

PTOLEMY
and
Charlemagne


Charle + magne
but "magne" is strictly Magne (given name) - Wikipedia Norwegian. I dug this oddity up in a couple of minutes. Magne (surname) - Wikipedia still does not add up even in French.

He is a brilliant topologist and should start hiring experts in fields like Linguistics and Anthropology to penetrate the historical debauchery more deeply.

He needs to start putting more meat on the bones of his revised history. Great job so far.
Do you know if he is still working on his chronology or if he left it?
 
OP
OP
mythstifieD

mythstifieD

Well-known member
Messages
187
Likes
665
#6
Oh my! Of course, they need to somehow make this research "racist". But ignoring that comment, does anyone know Fomenkos thoughts on WHO the Jews are?

He did a jaw dropping job, spending more than half a chapter, revealing evidence for the Catholic Church being a cult of Dionysus, complete with horny nuns and monks. But I have questions.

Did the Church exist before Jesus allegedly burst onto the scene in 1153?
If so, what was it's religion?
If the Old Testament is plagerizing Byzantine King's, this means King David and King Solomon not only weren't Jewish but didn't really exist as separate entities...
Why did the Church write up a fake lineage from which Jesus was prophisized, and pin this history on a people who ultimately reject Jesus as the messiah to this day?

I'm not saying Fomenko is wrong. I think he's right. And I think the answer to this is likely chilling.

Imagine someone appropriates your entire history, in fact wholesale replaces it with some fiction, then tells you who your messiah is then accuse you of killing that same messiah. What the f**k?!

Now add to the mystery by having another group that claims to be cousins of this made up religion, the Sons of Ishmael, the Muslims, who have a fake history and hate the Jews who also have a fake history.

How much death and destruction is due to this "mistake"? This boils my blood.

Also! As my primary pivot for getting deep into History has been uncovering who the Phoenicians were and where did they go... Well! In this light, they didn't exist as we think. They were the Venecians. And I'm starting to think the Venecians actually wrote ALL the gospels and this is where the Church may originate from. This is why Phoenicia has never had a rebirth, because they never went away (just shape shifted).

I say this because of St Mark. Why the hell is St Mark in Venice?! Because he was a Venetian!
 

freezetime26

Active member
Messages
55
Likes
152
#7
Oh my! Of course, they need to somehow make this research "racist". But ignoring that comment, does anyone know Fomenkos thoughts on WHO the Jews are?

He did a jaw dropping job, spending more than half a chapter, revealing evidence for the Catholic Church being a cult of Dionysus, complete with horny nuns and monks. But I have questions.

Did the Church exist before Jesus allegedly burst onto the scene in 1153?
If so, what was it's religion?
If the Old Testament is plagerizing Byzantine King's, this means King David and King Solomon not only weren't Jewish but didn't really exist as separate entities...
Why did the Church write up a fake lineage from which Jesus was prophisized, and pin this history on a people who ultimately reject Jesus as the messiah to this day?

I'm not saying Fomenko is wrong. I think he's right. And I think the answer to this is likely chilling.

Imagine someone appropriates your entire history, in fact wholesale replaces it with some fiction, then tells you who your messiah is then accuse you of killing that same messiah. What the f**k?!

Now add to the mystery by having another group that claims to be cousins of this made up religion, the Sons of Ishmael, the Muslims, who have a fake history and hate the Jews who also have a fake history.

How much death and destruction is due to this "mistake"? This boils my blood.

Also! As my primary pivot for getting deep into History has been uncovering who the Phoenicians were and where did they go... Well! In this light, they didn't exist as we think. They were the Venecians. And I'm starting to think the Venecians actually wrote ALL the gospels and this is where the Church may originate from. This is why Phoenicia has never had a rebirth, because they never went away (just shape shifted).

I say this because of St Mark. Why the hell is St Mark in Venice?! Because he was a Venetian!
If im not mistaken, the khazar empire was around 618AD-1048AD (Wikipedia data). I havent read the new chronology yet, but if it is true that fomenko says that the bible was written around the middle ages it ties with the khazars converting to judaism and the "Rev 2:9 - I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. " quote from the bible makes even more sense now. I mean, if you take the fact that the New testament was written around 0 to 150AD it doesnt have that much sense that quote (Taking into account that the khazar empire was around 600AD). However, im mixing the new chronology with the mainstream timeline, but that was just one thought that popped in my mind.
 

Top