History: Fiction or Science? Chronology 1
Jesus Christ was born in 1153 AD and crucified in 1186 AD. Unbelievable? Not since the release of the first volume in seven of "History: Fiction or Science?" series. This series crowns 30 years of research by Anatoly Fomenko and his colleagues. In Chapter I readers are reminded of when the contemporary chronological scale was created, who created it, and that it had major critics. The Biblical Jerusalem is identified with the mediaeval Constantinople. The New Testament was written before the Old, both exposed as referring to mediaeval events. Chapters II, III and IV contain abundant astronomical proof from the ancient Egyptian zodiacs, Ptolemy's Almagest, and the Apocalypse, demonstrating that all datings of 'ancient' eclipses are either medieval or fake. Chapters V and VI contain in-depth descriptions of the research methods used. In chapter VII readers learn more about confusion of the Antiquity and the Middle Ages. The appendices contain factual information to appease skeptics.
What people are saying - Write a review
all of human history began in 1900, and everything after it was fabricated in the 1920s,all historical events that took place before 1900 was made up by later histories, all archaeology artifacts were created by greedy archeologists to sell museum tackles.
if there was history before 1900, answer me just, do you ever met someone who was alive before 1900, chances are you don't, only making my point stronger!
This series is incredible and the first volume starts out as a tour de force. Using a combination of deductive methods (lunar coefficient and lunar eclipse date settling), inductive methods (textual interdependency, cultural nominalism via geographic and linguistic verificationism), and abductive methods (thread by thread weave of chronologies and narratives originally interpreted as unrelated but demonstrated to be interdependent, redundant, misdated, and/or mis-located), Anatoly Fomenko illustrates what every historian should be held accountable for: the minimal baseline of what a reasonable person is to believe about the past given limited evidence, ambiguous and/or dubious sources, ad hoc gloss hyperbole and blind reckoning of second-hand commentators.
Further, his approach feigns little and simply invites the reader to calmly and quietly attend to the fact and counterfactual comparisons themselves in order to reconsider what it is that they may have taken for granted when handed history.
The first four volumes (currently the only available in the US) are the most penetrating look into history which a thinker/reader of historical texts has attempted. To put it bluntly: this is the best literary investment of your life. The degree of infuriation in the reaction of many who have not taken the time to calmly consider its contents, is only a sign of the pace of the modern day - and has little or naught to do with the actual contents.
Fomenko claims to have an angle about how to hold history-making accountable before your own highest private standards for verificationism. He delivers. ~~~Euanthes