Is Ancient History Completely Made Up by 'The Man'?

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
Hypothetical scenario for all of you to ponder. What if all human history was fiction fabricated by those in power to keep that power. Such is a theory proposed in the New Chronology. Scary thought. :eek:

This version of events is substantiated by hard facts and logic – validated by new astronomical research and statistical analysis of ancient sources – to a greater extent than everything you may have read and heard about history before.
Click to expand...
 
c36aa6221d5bfe47b66e083e823d0796bfeb24423ee3ee8915b43d04a1f3edfe.jpg
 
Let me put on my foil hat...

Fomenko believes there is no reliable written record of human events before the 11th century.
Click to expand...
He is both completely free to believe that and can also simultaneously be completely wrong.

The idea behind his very selective criteria, while avoiding things that don't fit in his narrative, are chronicled on Wikipedia.

What's not in doubt is that many historical texts have been copied with mistakes, commentary added and sections removed (colored by then contemporary views) and various other problems which make them unreliable. However, there are certainly very old records on various medium, and is one of the ways we know how far back written history goes.
 
There are far too many people who have written historical accounts, as well as people who are historians (in every century) for any sort of "universal conspiracy" to develop. The world has never in its history had a unified "power" structure of the kind that would be remotely interested in manufacturing history. This kind of propaganda only suits one type of person: the revisionist, who isn't happy with recorded history and wants to change the record to suit his own prejudices and beliefs...(there is no shortage of nuts and fruitcakes these days...;))
 
Conventional history can be just as spotty as nutty ones like Fomenko's, especially if the period concerning it is not well attested. He may get some points right and completely fuck up others, but that's the same for the former as well as the latter. The whole conspiracy vs logic argument is a false dichotomy and a pretty stale one at that, however.
 
Interestingly enough, in the old USSR (Soviet Union) a whole lot of history was fabricated for public consumption...one of the many breaks with reality that helped to do in the Soviet state, eventually. The Russians might actually find this idea very plausible since it actually happened in the USSR. It takes a society a long, long time to recover from such damage--if indeed it ever fully can. The mid-east Muslim view of history, for instance, while far different from Soviet history propaganda, is equally false in many instances. It's an intriguing subject, though.
 
There is a certain bit of truth in the center of this theory. Some ancient "historical" events are likely embellished or even fictional. It's hard to verify authors running back further back than about 1000 AD and the line between fiction and reality was a lot more fluid concept to the writers of these texts.

Fomenko has taken this idea and constructed a massively complex fiction around it. He takes liberties with everything, how do you know which texts are inaccurate? It's almost impossible, so he picks and chooses using rather spurious criteria. The idea that Jesus Christ was crucified at Constantinople in 1086 is shear lunacy. We don't even have proof that there even was a man named Jesus who claimed to be saviour and who's followers started the Christian church (despite his teachings which say NOT to have an organized church). None of that is substantiated by historical texts at all!

So yeah, good idea but poor methodology yields poor results.
 
Quix said:
There is a certain bit of truth in the center of this theory. Some ancient "historical" events are likely embellished or even fictional. It's hard to verify authors running back further back than about 1000 AD and the line between fiction and reality was a lot more fluid concept to the writers of these texts.

Fomenko has taken this idea and constructed a massively complex fiction around it. He takes liberties with everything, how do you know which texts are inaccurate? It's almost impossible, so he picks and chooses using rather spurious criteria. The idea that Jesus Christ was crucified at Constantinople in 1086 is shear lunacy. We don't even have proof that there even was a man named Jesus who claimed to be saviour and who's followers started the Christian church (despite his teachings which say NOT to have an organized church). None of that is substantiated by historical texts at all!

So yeah, good idea but poor methodology yields poor results.
Click to expand...

Have you read into his methodology? If anything it's the more interesting out of that and his conclusions.
 
have 100 people watch the same thing, then ask them to give as detailed as an account as they can, then tell me history isn't inherently flawed.

all of history should be taken with a grain of salt, or two, or 1000, or outright rejected. this isn't to say all history documents are wrong, of course.

for example, take the roman emperor, caligula. eccentric fellow, as many reports indicate. but given the political context where people would often exaggerate and fabricate stories, did he really send his army to stab the sea to "fight posideon" as punishment? who can say in earnest?

if anything, i think people at first reject this reflection on history (that it is often flawed) because for us, that sucks. we would want history to be reliable; it's all we really have from those times. and if we bought in to all those stories, and theyre then shown to be incorrect, that makes us look dumb, and we dont want that. so we resist the concept of history being retarded.
 
I know religion is utter BS and it was devised by men. So I'd assume history also has gaping flawed accounts as it was also captured be the same kind of men. History has always been written by victors too so who knows what real history has been lost over the years. I've heard a lot of stories about entire libraries and museums being burned to the ground.

ISIS just did it recently as well.

Plus we all damn well know aliens fed apes mushrooms and injected some of their DNA into them and then let them evolve for billions of years, creating what we are today. That's historical fact. ;)
 
Considering the enormous fallacy that is the bible, anything is possible and people will believe anything. I agree that it is likely that certain things have been exaggerated or made up. I'm sure for the most part things are fairly accurate though, especially once you get closer to modern history compared to thousands of years ago.
 
What would be the point in going through all the trouble, Americans with all their wealth and power and access to the internet and information do not even care what happened 2 years ago when it comes time to vote in a general election. It simply wouldn't matter what you wrote history like when it came time to go to war we would be pissed and do it regardless of the past. And when it comes time to have an election we will destroy a political party if our economy doesn't allow us to take out a second mortgage to buy a boat and eat McDonalds all day. And if you don't freaking improve the economy in 2 years we will throw you out and put the other guys back in.
 
Grimspoon said:
An article posted on the Gawker network. No.
Click to expand...
Gawker? I'll just assume the article claims all history was fabricated by the white cisgendered patriarchy. And I don't care what you say, oppressive Google Chrome spell check, cisgendered is a word.
rudy said:
What would be the point in going through all the trouble, Americans with all their wealth and power and access to the internet and information do not even care what happened 2 years ago when it comes time to vote in a general election. It simply wouldn't matter what you wrote history like when it came time to go to war we would be pissed and do it regardless of the past. And when it comes time to have an election we will destroy a political party if our economy doesn't allow us to take out a second mortgage to buy a boat and eat McDonalds all day. And if you don't freaking improve the economy in 2 years we will throw you out and put the other guys back in.
Click to expand...
Nice rant, but you forgot to include Wal Mart in your list of grievances.
 
The problem with this notion is that there's this science called "archaeology" that relies on physical evidence as opposed to just written history. It also has to assume that separate accounts of the same events in different cultures are a result of plagiarism 100% of the time. The whole notion about the Old Testament and New Testament stuff... yet another way to try to undermine Christianity, but they're making a huge mistake there. Jews keep exceptional genealogical records, so accurate that they can trace their ancestries all the way back to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Tradition plays a central part of Jewish culture, so much so that its managed to preserve their culture even after being scattered around the whole world. In addition, Romans also kept exceptional records, and events recorded in Jewish history are recorded also in Roman history since the land of Israel was under Roman rule. Separate historians in both cultures have recorded identical events at identical times. What reason would they have to conspire with each other, since the Jews were not happy about being under Roman rule? If all of that physical evidence has been fabricated, well that's one damned good conspiracy considering scholars from all over the world in different countries have all pretty much examined the same evidence and not all of these countries have historically gotten along with each other.

It sounds to me that they're wanting to rewrite history to suit their own ideas of how history should be and trying to find a way to rationalize it so that others will swallow it - which is ironic, considering that's exactly what they're accusing others of already having done. It's a slap in the face to historians, linguists, archaeologists, and anyone else that's devoted their lives to studying and preserving the past. Are there some errors and inaccuracies? Almost certainly, but to say all of it is completely fabricated is ridiculous.
 
Don't see how this is such a hard concept to beleive. Fabrication of history is well known, Christopher Columbus was a great example. So who's to to it isn't happening on a grand scale? I tend to not just swallow the info fed to us, if you look a little deeper you will see this world overwhelmed by lies
 
I believe that there is a lot of "revisionist" history, but totally fake? I don't see how, considering that new discoveries are made all the time.
 
You guys did see that it was posted on April Fools Day right?
 
As far as I can see there's more evidence that shows euclid being from Africa. So how is it all sources quote him as being Greek?
 
You have to sift ancient history to try to separate allegory and other inaccuracies, but the identification of the Minoans as the origin of atlantis myths, the excavations of Troy and Jericho that occurred because of interpretations of historical narratives, and other archeological findings seem to indicate there are some facts in history, but you have to dig for them (no pun intended) ... Proposing Christ in the 11th century makes no sense and violates tons of narratives and respected timelines
 
Just look at the Holocaust. Hitler and the SS had the resources to kill 6 million Jews? Right...
 
Tgrove said:
As far as I can see there's more evidence that shows euclid being from Africa. So how is it all sources quote him as being Greek?
Click to expand...
No comment on that in particular, but a lot of people seem to confuse Northern coastal Africa with sub-Saharan Africa.

Sub-Saharan Africa is what we think of as "black Africa", with the various tribal cultures that occupied those areas. There was not only a natural barrier separating the "two Africas" but a massive cultural chasm as well, as while Northern coastal Africa was highly advanced and occupied by Mediterranean cultures that had ships, architecture, advanced mathematics, written language, astronautical charts, calendars, etc, Sub-Saharan Africa did not even develop a written language until the Roman alphabet and numerical system was introduced to them.

So much of Northern coastal Africa was in fact Greek, and remember that Egypt was ruled by Greeks (the famous Cleopatra for example was full blooded Greek, after generations of Greek Egyptian kings), and great African cities such as Alexandria were founded by Greeks.

Greeks and Romans referred to African blacks as "Ethiopians" by and large, to distinguish them from the Mediterranean people's of Northern Africa that shared little in common with them. But there is a strong desire of late, as seen in Hollywood, to find black heroes of antiquity particularly in film. So there is political pressure to try and rewrite history so that the Carthaginians and Egyptians were black, because they were after all, from Africa! And all Africans are black, duh! Yeah, but nope.

So political correctness sometimes taints history, and becomes such a hot button issue that the Egyptians for example outlawed any further scientific inquiry into the matter using mummified remains of DNA, literature, and skull shape (forensics can generally reasonably accurately deduce sex/age/race from skeletal remains alone), since studies were so far all pointing to a close relation to modern day Western Europeans (skull shapes, literature, and genetic markers like haplogroup R1b1a2).

Why the big outrage? Well, the evidence shows that the overwhelming majority of current day Egyptians are NOT decedents of their mummified leadership at the very least, and are likely migrants arriving steadily since the fall of the Egyptian empire.
 
dmonkey said:
No more dancing around the subject, give me the proof that Euclid was a black African, and I'll get back to you. :p
Click to expand...

No, you show me proof that he was a white Greek. That was the point , all sources seem to point out that we have basically no info on him but that he lived in Africa, but yet claim he's greek.
 
Tgrove said:
No, you show me proof that he was a white Greek. That was the point , all sources seem to point out that we have basically no info on him but that he lived in Africa, but yet claim he's greek.
Click to expand...

So in conjunction with this thread being the fabrication of ancient history, I think it's clear to this went over your head
 
I'll take it as a W because you seem to have taken offense from the start and I'm not sure why. We could have had a civilized discussion about the topic at hand but you chose to let your pride obstruct that possibility. Thanks anyways
 
We're done as a civilization. The Sophists have had the last laugh. My only consolation is that they will get the first bullets.
 
He backs it up with zero evidence. He claps his hands over his ears and yells "YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT" a lot though. Except that there are millions of archaeologists, the conspiracy would require damned near half of the educated global population. At which point it's not a conspiracy of lies any longer: It's a religion.

Plus: Chinese written history goes back 3200 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top