[Sorensen731]

Revisionisms in History - New Chronologies?

Have you read any of the researchers who prove history as fake (depending on each, everything previous to XVII, or XIX) ?

Like Anatoly Fomenko, Christoph Pfister or Edwin Johson to name a few?

Edwin Johson was a XIX British who show that Vatican and Christianity was founded at best in the XV or later, many others have destroyed official science in a lot of ways, statistical, astronomical, militarily (documents of gunpowder, documents on construction of first american forts, of divergences of centuries in christian missions in the states and mexico, impossibilities in population...)

With Google (scroogle better) it's easy to find some of their works online. And with google translate many doors of knowledge are open now, like http://translate.google.ru/translate?sl ... history.ru another Russian with interesting research.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

I've heard of Fomenko. Not of the others. It seems valid to me that a lot of years have been added in written history. The Chinese claim to have five thousand years of recorded history; I think it's more like five hundred. The 'Dark Ages' never happened, and that's why you can't find much evidence about them. Also, I think carbon 14 and other dating methods gets way off most of the time.

[Sorensen731]

Thanks for bringing the Chinese. They are the textbook example!
See;
As soon as they started to be sold as a new power, they;

-Got ancient "history"
-Got to "space"
-Got huge economics statistics
-Got lot of north-korean style "tourism"
-Got nukes
-Got "ancient" wall* (Mostly built during Mao)
-Got TV publicity (Olimpic Games, and again, the Wall, screaimg proof of Mao that he invented the country, and is the only thing they show everywhere, that, and virtual digits)

I believe China is a big coastal Potemkin, behind the skyscrapers and fake GDP, Beijing controls nothing, no uniform language, no power in rural areas, no long history, it's a new invented state, previous colony of all Europe, of Japan, a mosaic of cultures and languages that appears on the maps as China, a paper country, we had the privilege of seeing how states are made out of nothing, XIX century their country was ruled by Europeans, XX by Europeans and Japanese, that even took their capital, their new state with Mao, had British colonies in front of their face, had "rebel" province Taiwan laughing in their face... and this guys claim they had a history of 5.000 years? As an Empire? Come on!

[rerevisionist]

Like FirstClassSkeptic, I've heard of Fomenko too, though not Edwin Johnson (19th century) or Christoph Pfizer (recent) - though Pfizer seems to be available on Internet in German. I read most of the Amazon book reviews of Fomenko - his books are part of a planned set which I would guess will probably not be completed - like Martin Bernal of 'Black Athena'. However the reviews are absurdly mixed - carbon 14 is in there, but not apparently the Egyptian chronologies. Some people say the author's rational, others that it's lunatic. He may have been thinking of the 'Donation of Constantine' being proven a fake. He may have read books on the non-existence of Jesus. He sounds a bit like Velikovsky - but like most of us here, I've learned that I have to read the original rather than second-hand reports. Maybe some other time, as his interest seems to be mostly Russia - he has a revisionist view of e.g. the Mongol hordes, and Ivan 'the terrible', and the Romanovs - but I couldn't tell from the reviews whether the rest of the world's history is retained by Fomenko. He seems to be ignored by professional historians - but historians are so godawful...

On China, I'm a bit disappointed in your collective dismissal. The Great Wall was believed to be the only man-made structure visible (in principle) from the moon - in the 1920s, years before Mao. The great expert was Joseph Needham, who wrote a massive multi-volume work Science and Civilisation in China, and who ran the Joseph Needham Institute in Cambridge. He wrote on chemical warfare in Korea and helped alert Bertrand Russell to US war crimes in Vietnam. He also wrote a book entitled The Grand Titration - he had been a biochemist, which explains the title - intended as a comparison between the 'west' and China. I like the Potemkin analogy ... but I'm not sure.

Just to annoy people I'll put my Amazon review of The Grand Titration here:--

Disappointing - disjointed lectures & articles, often not to the point
I have a copy (sold to me fifteen years ago by a public library) of Needham's 'Science and Civilization in China' - 5 volumes of 27 sections. Sections 1-7 are all in volume 1, and give an overview of the history and geography of China, the travel of ideas to Europe, pseudo-science (including Feng Shui), and so on. Needham began in 1938, and grew more ambitious, or perhaps gained Chinese collaborators; at any rate my edition has five separate books, but two of these, including the fattest, are volume 4. The final section, 27 at that time, dealt with mechanical engineering. The book is well illustrated both with line drawings and monochrome plates on art paper. I believe more sections have been added subsequently.

'The Grand Titration' is a tremendous disppointment. I'll explain why in bullet-point style:-

** The title is misleading. Titration - Needham states in his footnote that everyone does chemistry these days - is a precise process, involving a drop-by-drop check on a chemical reaction. The title suggests the book is a detailed comparison of China with the rest of the world. But it's not so; this book has eight chapters, each of which is a lecture, paper, or contribution to a collective book. Written between 1946 and 1964, they simply don't belong together. 'On Science and Social Change' and 'Science and Society in Ancient China', 'Time and Eastern Man', 'Human Law and the Laws of Nature' illustrate the type of thing.

** Rather few examples recur throughout the book, no doubt because they struck Needham as important. These include: efficient horse harness, iron and steel, mechanical clock, 'the standard method of converting rotary to rectlinear motion', segmental arch bridges, and the Cardan suspension - yes, I had to check what that was. Also the equatorial sky co-ordinate system. And the three Baconian things - paper, magnetism, and gunpowder.

** The latter three in particular need more treatment, which Needham does not give. Paper - but what about Egypt? Magnetism: Needham pays great attention to the angle of dip of magnets - but, if you're trying to navigate, who cares? As for gunpowder, it's a complicated thing, involving extracting nitrates from urine (not that they knew that) and discovering carbon and sulphur burnt fast with it, and give off what we'd call gases; it's really several inventions, plus empiricism.

** Another Chinese claim is the seismograph; they made them first. And yet why would Europeans want seismographs? Europe is fairly stable geologically - but when it isn't it's been catastophic, so careful measurements seem a bit pointless.

** Needham has a persistent tendency to be hyper-theoretical. His account of scientific method virtually ignores empiricism, and yet for most of human history people very much depended on straight observation: why do people eat? What is disease? Why does brown ore with coal give iron? - these are some of countless questions which have only been answered for a couple of hundred years, if that.

** Needham seems unable to simply describe things; he follows the wretched Marxist-type tradition of arms-length dislike plus silly criticism. He doesn't make it clear if 'alchemy' in China means the same as 'alchemy' anywhere else. 'Feudalism' of course ditto, and the 'oriental mode of production'. There's a lot of material on Confucius, Taoism, Mohism, plus sundry ancient Greek philosophers, and more recent Europeans; but there are no very helpful comparisons. Despite the fact that China never had a full money system, he uses the idea of 'capitalism' without analysis of finance - a 20th century tradition of course - don't mention the Jews. There are other influences - 'bureaucracy' for instance which surely couldn't be the same as the European version. There's also a great deal of material on science (Needham, and his brother, started as biochemists), but this is contaminated with then-contemporary material which may or may not turn out to be science - particles vs waves, for example, and Einstein worship.

** Needham introduces irrelevancies at great length; he's a generous-minded internationalist and anti-'racialist', very like Russell in his appreciation of the Chinese. He says 'each people enters the modern world with its own offering of thought..' which even if untrue is a nice thought - but it's irrelevant to the main issues.

** Needham does not discuss important issues sufficiently! On time, Needham says almost in passing, that Chinese artefacts were meticulously dated, and there are 25 dynastic histories written from about 90 BC through 1736. I believe there are very many older writings, too - which sounds far more impressive than Europe with the Doomsday Book and Rolls etc. Similarly: Needham mentions in one essay that the idea of a civil service goes (or went) deeper in China than anywhere else - even fairy stories ended with the heroin marrying a mandarin or 'bureaucrat'. He comments somewhere that stories about heroic water engineers are peculiar to China (heavy rain needed contours, canals, flood controls - in fact China was hard to invade because of canals). And that the only investment was land purchase, so bureaucrats did that until the proportion of tenant farmers was dangerously high.

Some of these comments may appear a bit philistine. All I can say is - you'd have to read it to see. A great opportunity wasted. I'm tempted to give 2 stars, or even 1, but defer to the sheer erudition quotient.

I don't think there's any doubt about the antiquity of civilisation in China, and India for that matter.

[mooninquirer]

rerevisionist ----- I'm with you on this one as well, Further, we have to ask ourselves, "what is the motivation on the lie about history ?"

When we say that the "Cold War is a hoax," we mean that both the US and the Soviet Union at the time of the Cold War were controlled ultimately by Jews, and its purpose was to justify America's support for Israel, and a huge investment in a military-industrial complex, so that Israel will ALSO be given a lot of weapons, to fight her more local neighbors. NOW, with the Soviet enemy gone, the Jews needed to create another bogus enemy to justify America's support for Israel.

When we say that WW I or WW II is a hoax, we are doing historical revisionism; we are not claiming that these wars did not occur, that there was no killing, etc., but that their PURPOSE has not been explained fully explained. WW I is just a war that cries out for explanation, especially from the perspective of why the US should have given even a rat's ass about entering it. One does not need to have seen / heard the Louis Farrakhan famous speech on the Federal Reserve, the Rothschilds, the international bankers, and WW I, OR need to have heard the BENJAMIN FREEDMAN SPEECH ( just google that ), to think that America's entry into WW I was VERY unjustified. This is one thing that the Jewish propagandists in the media, and who direct the curriculum taught in schools have done a very bad job, from their own perspective. The Jews did a good job of convincing Americans that WW II was a "good war," that America needed to enter because the Germans and Japanese were taking over the world, but that argument does NOT apply to WW I, and I daresay, that asking people why America entered WW I is a good way to shake up Americans, and to introduce historical revisionism, and the fact that elite Jews in power have pulled strings in getting America into wars, in this case for two purposes ---- to help create the state of Israel, and to bankrupt America, to make her more dependent on the newly created Federal Reserve to borrow money.

I would like to add that I don't think it would be possible for America to engage in any kind of WW I today, on the very flimsy excuse given ( the sinking of the Lusitania ). WW I involved a DRAFT. In modern times, the Zionists TRIED to use the attack upon the USS Cole as an excuse to get America to fight the Muslim world, with targets like the ( weak ) Taliban in Afghanistan, and especially Saddam's Iraq, as states that "harbored the terrorists" that attacked America. The hard line Zionist Jewish warmongers, which included several Jews in Bill Clinton's own cabinet, tried to get Bill Clinton to go along with war in Iraq in late 1997 and 1998. Clinton's Secretary of Defense, Bill Cohen, famously went on the show " This Week" and held up a 5 pound bag of sugar asking the hosts to imagine that it was a bag of anthrax spores, and that Saddam would dump this on a city. ( Cokie Roberts asked Bill Cohen "could you put that bag down, please ?" ) This was in November of 1997, and in January, the PNAC groups of neo-cons delivered a letter to Bill Clinton asking him to go to war with Saddam. Now, Bill Clinton did not ( except for lobbing cruise missiles at Iraq in December of 1998 as he was also being impeached by the House of Representatives ). But let's suppose that Bill Clinton went along with the full scale war, invasion, complete overthrow of Saddam, and occupation of Iraq, that the Zionists really wanted, in late 1997 and early 1998. Then, you BEST BELIEVE that there would have been NO constant reporting on the news of Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky.
Also, the Jews wanted to measure the American public's appetite for war. That is why the three Jews, Bill Cohen, Madeleine Albright, and Sandy Berger, went around the country conducting town hall meetings to drum up support for a war with Iraq, in the winter of 1998, and the response they got was overwhelming disapproval. The look of disappointment on their faces is a real classic, and can be seen in this documentary ---- google : PBS FRONTLINE THE WAR BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.

The above documentary ALSO gives a very important clip of GW Bush telling his cabinet, at Camp David, on Sept 20, 2001, a few days after 911, that "Bin Laden is the PRIME SUSPECT." This should strike people as a rather odd thing for the commander in chief to be saying, given that America actually DID go to war in Afghanistan, and all of the fuss made in the media the next day after 911, that Osama bin Laden was responsible, with his face on the cover of EVERY magazine, and his face constantly on TV, and the current repetition in the media that Bin Laden was the mastermind behind 911. Note that GW Bush did not tell his cabinet that it was an absolute certainty that Bin Laden was behind 911, as the media had told the America public.


These are modern examples of historical revisionism, and I am giving them as examples of the string pulling that the Zionist Jews in power have done to orchestrate these wars. We have to ask ourselves, with respect to historic revisionism of China, what the Jews or anyone else in power has gotten from telling lies about history. I do NOT see China as being a puppet state of the Jews, because it is NOT going along with any type of warmongering toward Iran, and has a very large trading relationship with Iran. Further, the banking and media are state controlled in China, and there is no lobbying. There are very few Christians, let alone evangelical Christians in China, so I do NOT see that the Jews have access to the levers of power in China, like they do in America. Despite this, a half Jew, Gordon Duff, who I USED TO think was a good truth teller, put out a scare piece in which he stated that after the Jews destroy America, they are just going to go to China, and parasitize that country, and make it a puppet of Israel. I don't think that is going to happen at all, and while the Jews might go to another country like Canada to escape intense anti-Jew rioting in America ( as a result of a possible war with Iran, draft, food rationing and economic disruption ), I do not think they will be able to get any other country to be a puppet of Israel and to fight its wars. Without America, Israel will have nothing, and even assuming that any type of war with Iran is "won," it would require a MAINTENANCE of troops. Even assuming Israel completely gains control of the oil in the middle east, it would still have to DEFEND that from other countries, and without America as an ally, it will be in very dire straits.
I think the Jews should be much more circumspect in doing things that are going to greatly weaken America, because without America, Israel has no other friends in the world, that would also be willing to send LARGE numbers of troops to fight wars for Israel. This is stated by the late Tony Judt at the end of the following video ---- google : THE ISRAEL LOBBY

[FirstClassSkeptic]

On time, Needham says almost in passing, that Chinese artefacts were meticulously dated, and there are 25 dynastic histories written from about 90 BC through 1736

How old are the oldest Chinese skeleton remains in China? The oldest skeletons found in southern China are of negroes. And in western China, it's White European types (The Tarim mummies.) The oldest carbon14 date I have found for an asiatic prototypical skeletons in eastern China is 2200 years old.

So if there was an ancient civilization in China, was it a Chinese civilization?

Diop said that Chinese were just a White/negro hybrid. I think he's right about that, even though his afrocentrism prejudiced everything he wrote. (He also said that Egyptians were negro, and I think he's the one that started that theory, about 1975.)

The Chinese today seem in want of creativity. If you look at a list of Chinese inventions, the last one was about a thousand years ago. (According to mainstream chronology.) What happened to them? (The latest Chinese inventor they come up with is Wang, who they say invented magnetic core memory. This is wrong. Jay Forester, et al, came up with magnetic core memory at MIT. What Wang patented was a delay line memory device. In that device, ferrite toroids were used as the cores of inductors. They were not magnetized as in Forester's invention, nor were they directly addressable. )

From what little I've looked at, the dating of Chinese historical documents seems internal and self serving.

[rerevisionist]

This isn't new chronology - it's new history! The received view, or at least my received view, is that the Chinese were militarily strong at the same time as the Roman Empire. And the Wall, which presumably must have some organic bits in it, ought to be carbon-24-dateable. And Confucius was pre-0 BC. I believe Chinese script is readable anywhere in China, at least by the literati, which suggests a long time for which China was unified. The reason I heard for the evolution of the epicanthic fold (OK - it's selective advantage) was the general high winds in steppeland - they don't look anything like white-black hybrids to me. Needham gives a long list of Chinese inventions but it's perfectly possible - as with Jews, Muslims and blacks - that there's been a process of crediting where it wasn't due. BUT it's certainly true that people tend to believe what they're taught, and also pretend they thought of it themselves, so that people who think up new lines of thought can have a lot of hidden influence.

Reading this thread, I do wish historians would make a better job, not just of the tricky propaganda-influenced stuff, but just the everyday main lines they assume. They just seem immovably committed to not doing this. There was a book from about 1995, Centuries of Darkness by Peter James and others, trying to show the Egyptian chronologies which (from memory) span a millennium or two had a few centuries wrong, where the priests deleted Akhnaton and others, but I don't think there was ever a proper refutation, or, alternatively, an acceptance they were right. The Shakespeare authorship issue shows the same pattern - almost none of the vast numbers of professional Eng lit teachers will address the issue. One of my Amazon book reviews was on a history of the University of Manchester, and I gave a list of issues in Britain which these people had done nothing about. I suggested professors ought to have a legal obligation to give their views, with reasons, even if they didn't want to, in exchange for the privileges of their pay and position - I got one thumbs down.

[Sorensen731]

You "heard"? That's it? If you want I can send you my four volumes of his English translation. You should do more than read reviews on amazon, in Russian they have dozens of published books, I lost count, and many others authors have their own books, I have the digital editions of many (in Russian). They are good because they point names you can investigate on your own, you can re-check their data, I have done it, I checked several of their theories, and they are correct. I highly recommend them, Even if now I believe he falls too soon, too short.
About C14 there is a great book in German, C14 Crash if I remember correctly from memory...
The Newton book may be interesting too, I ordered it and will receive it soon.
Even his Russianism is understandable, by the unexplained massive size of Russia, and it's 10% of the world population in the previous century, it lost a lot of land, in Eastern and Northern Europe, and the unexplained French and German influence? It smells rat km away... The 'Roman Empire' myth is smashed nicely there, with the lists of rulers being shown as duplicates of the same master table.
But going back to Science, his 3rd English volume focus on Astronomers and helps to show people how a joke the official science is, with his invented characters.
You talk, rightly about 911, Holotales, but history will be a bigger event, it will wake them like cold water, people will re-activate their brains, they will use them to question things again. And they support each other, they lied about recent events, why not about distant ones in the long past?
And if they lied with a straight face about a past that didn't exist, they could be inventing things today too!

And about China, don't get me wrong please, I love traditional chinese medicine, (and greek and others too), and I would love to walk in their forests with Taoist statues, or their unique trees and mountains, but that has nothing to do with thousand years old Empires and marvellous discoveries. In ancient maps, China is Chinese Tartaria, never a dynasty or Empire, which can't be verified, their terracotta army too is very recent, it could have been two or three centuries. And I attack the long official chronology of other countries too, like fake Columbus.
The Chinese can have dynasties thousands year long, up to the BigBong if they want to, like the Vatican up to the first centuries, it's impossible to verify, worthless, self-made.
I am Japanese on China, the logical view I think, Japan is advanced, rich, organized, clean, respectful to Nature, with huge Zen influence, with traditions like Samurai and Ninja, with a disciplined people who proved they can take all Asia easily, as they did, and go take great China capital in a walk, Why should the Chinese be the great ones and not the Japanese? China was a coastal Japanese colony, with hundred of different cultures each with their own language in the deep inside. Let's not forget they are communists, masters of deceit. And probably highly corrupt, sold to foreign powers to keep the chair. Maybe with time, if it doesn't break up, it could solidify and unify with Beijinhua, slowly, but I see a melting pot not a strong coherent country with common culture, language or history, backbone necessary for anything. That's why I belive in more solid, historically proven countries, specially if you add other variables like art or science potential.
And Rome and Paris weren't there a thousand years ago, many travellers who were the first to be "educated" on the magnificent Roman Empire (of Italy) went there and came back ill, depressed, angy the natives didn't realize how important they were, and how badly they took care of the "great" ruins of the "capital".
I still need a lot to learn, and don't have a whole picture, but I know something is very wrong, why, and how exactly I don't know, what happened? Maybe a big cataclysm and then by accident, error, lack of documentation or understanding of the language and with political interest of the surviving or interested or new-powers they rewrote history in their favor, or to suppress the old order, I have been gathering several good trails that may prove very interesting, for now I can only offer and share my deep fear, suspicion, and half-corroborated belief, chronology is very wrong, maybe up to recent times, late XVIII, and to middle XIX, history is way shorter and different.

[Sorensen731]

What Roman Empire? The late Holy Roman Empire, of the XVII/XVIII? Because there was no other

We are never told where the information about the past comes from. We are not told that this 3000 years old tale survived 2600 years alone in the woods until it was "found". If they presented it this way, the honest truthful way, we would lost respect immediately to the Roman Empire and the Ancient Greeks, that after a millennium of dark ages were "recovered" by "monks", and we had a renascence, with interest in imitating the thousands years old past. Please... there was no renascence, no ancient roman empire, everything was there, in the Renascence, and late at that, XVII, XVIII, when they went to America, later publishing in books the "history of the discoveries" all way back to a Columbus... I read this books, written centuries later when they start with "The King has ordered a history of the discoveries" Yeah, of course...sure...
The Wall made no sense, unless it was to protect the coastal cities (then unified great, independent China didn't exist).

What is needed is the Original documents, start everything with; this information comes from this book found at that time by that guy, and it's corroborated by this other books that talk about him.
It's a shame to start a wikipedia article for example about greek mythology and not start with this book was discovered by a monk in the Renascence... they start telling so many thousands years ago... they lie, they hide the facts, it's fraud, or stupidity, anyway by lie or by low intelligence they shouldn't be respected the least.

And about Egypt, Newton himself published in his book that they were faking a thousand years in Egypt, or more, and several centuries in the Middle ages, and he was a great mathematician, astronomer, with knowledge of calendars and very well connected too...

[rerevisionist]

The 'Big Bang' thread has posts in it very like these, for readers trying to make sense of this.

Sorensen, the monks weren't credited with rediscovering the past; there was the revival of interest in Greek and Latin, and the manuscripts and books made from them which were supposedly preserved by some Muslims. Are you suggesting that Plato's works for example were made up? Again, I wish you'd order your thoughts better....

Since this entire forum is supposed to be looking at the nuclear hoax, are there any comparable historical examples? Do you have views on opinion-bending concerning heavy cavalry, for example, or longbows, gunpowder, or 'Greek Fire'?

[rerevisionist]

Russian site with new versions of history and chronology and interpretations
Sorensen kindly forwarded information about livehistory.ru - A Russian site which may be based on, or influenced by, Fomenko - or maybe there's an entire Russian school of alternative history. The following link should load the site's forum, and also translate into English - for other languages some change will be needed. (I've just realised he already posted much the same thing; but I'll leave it anyway)....
http://translate.google.com/translate?s ... c%3Dlatest

The site includes the 'young China' idea, Schliemann of Troy as a fake, the influence of comets on Islamic iconography, the statistics of comet reports, Various Russian things, Jesuits, the history of gunpowder with information on nitrates, mitochondrial DNA, the $ sign, the swastika ... lots of material. I couldn't find anything nuclear (even when searching for ??????? which may or may not be the right translation).

[Sorensen731]

Greek Fire could be cannons, when a historical event is sent to the past, or duplicated to the past, and they can't obviously say cannons, they use "greek fire".
The important thing is the ideas, the author we all know as Plato had great books under that name, and they are real, valuable, but there is a Pleton, a "follower" of Plato in the Renascence, whose biography is very much alike. Many "similarities" had been found. On that, on google books or scribd the first volume on Fomenko is right on.
It's not a disrespect, many events happened, but where duplicated, misunderstood, misdated, some created for political reasons, for new dynasties, for control (we are not invaders, we've been ruling your people for centuries!), for national ego, to justify ownership or legitimacy...

Another different independent group;
http://www.ilya.it/chrono/en/index.html