Get Free Ebook Maps and Coins vs History (History: Fiction or Science?) (Volume 17)
The very first reason of why choosing this book is due to the fact that it's offered in soft data. It implies that you can save it not just in one device yet likewise bring it all over. Maps And Coins Vs History (History: Fiction Or Science?) (Volume 17) will certainly feature just how deep the book will certainly supply for you. It will give you something brand-new. Also this is just a book; the presence will truly demonstrate how you take the inspirations. As well as now, when you truly have to make manage this publication, you could start to get it.
Maps and Coins vs History (History: Fiction or Science?) (Volume 17)
Get Free Ebook Maps and Coins vs History (History: Fiction or Science?) (Volume 17)
Maps And Coins Vs History (History: Fiction Or Science?) (Volume 17). A task might obligate you to always improve the understanding as well as encounter. When you have no adequate time to boost it straight, you can get the encounter and also understanding from reviewing the book. As everybody knows, book Maps And Coins Vs History (History: Fiction Or Science?) (Volume 17) is incredibly popular as the home window to open the globe. It means that checking out publication Maps And Coins Vs History (History: Fiction Or Science?) (Volume 17) will certainly provide you a brand-new method to discover every little thing that you require. As guide that we will certainly supply here, Maps And Coins Vs History (History: Fiction Or Science?) (Volume 17)
Guide with that Maps And Coins Vs History (History: Fiction Or Science?) (Volume 17) features the some motivations the ideas can be taken for you that plan such a brand-new company. When you have no suggestion to prepare exactly what to do, this publication will certainly aid you. It happens when you rely review it flawlessly as well as get it extremely. Are you interested to review it? Let's take few mins to manage this publication and then take it as reviewing material.
To confirm how this publication will certainly influence you to be better, you could start reading by now. You might also have recognized the writer of this book. This is an extremely outstanding publication that was created by professional writer. So, you might not really feel doubt of Maps And Coins Vs History (History: Fiction Or Science?) (Volume 17) From the title and the author added on the cover, you will make certain to read it. Also this is a straightforward publication, the material is very crucial. It will not have to make you feel dizzy after reading.
When selecting this Maps And Coins Vs History (History: Fiction Or Science?) (Volume 17) to get as well as check out, you will certainly begin it from the first web page and make offer to love it a lot. Yeah, this publication actually has great condition of the book to read. Just how the writer draw in the readers is extremely smart. The pages will certainly reveal you why guide exists for the excellent people. They will worry you to be one that is much better in undergoing the life and also enhancing the life.
Product details
Series: History: Fiction or Science? (Book 17)
Paperback: 224 pages
Publisher: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform (October 4, 2017)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 1977934048
ISBN-13: 978-1977934048
Product Dimensions:
6 x 0.5 x 9 inches
Shipping Weight: 14.1 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
Average Customer Review:
3.8 out of 5 stars
6 customer reviews
Amazon Best Sellers Rank:
#1,373,637 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
Good
History was tampered with?Conspiracy? Nothing of the sorts. Why then the world history and especially its chronology were tampered with? Let us introduce a hypothesis that to boast, to lie, to pretend was (is?) a part of the human nature. On one hand, everybody justified the claims laid to the titles, and lands by alleged ancestry and its glorious deeds. On the other hand the court historians knew only too well how to please their masters. No need for conspiracy for that.Did events and eras such as the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, the Roman Empire , the Dark Ages, and the Renaissance, actually occur within a very different chronology from what we've been told? Maybe the history of THE CIVILIZATION is both drastically shorter and dramatically different than generally presumed, in spite of the of Homo sapiens crowd (that’s us) being around for 120 000 years at least and age of the planet Earth being over 4.5 billion years. It's highly unlikely that anyone told you before that there is not ONE single piece of firm written evidence or artefact that is reliably, independently and irrefutably dated older than the 11th century.The so called universal classic world history is a pack of intricate lies for MOST events prior to the 16th century. World history as we learn it today was entirely fabricated in the 16th-18th centuries on the ‘firm’ foundation laid down by Italian ‘scholars’ idem white and black robe clergy, idem ‘humanists’ in 14th-15th centuries. Petrarca and Dante, Bracciolinni and Macciavelli, Giotto, Bernini, Da Vinci and Michelangelo Corporations not only created immortal masterpieces exceedingly well paid by Roman Popes et al and Medici Princes of Florence, but also mass produced ‘ancient’ manuscripts, frescoes, statues very much in demand by the wealthy customers from England, France, Germany and Russia.Oxbridge scholars earned their daily bread & butter by cooking very Ancient Greece & Roman Empire history mostly from Italian ingredients. The Glorious Revolution in England has already taken place, the British Empire was in works and badly needed glorious predecessors like the Roman Empire. The French learned crowd made their encyclopaedic cuisine of alleged Roman Republic history preparing the French minds for an Ideal Republic to come.The French Kings out of pure spite of all things English (!) made a ‘successful’ live test of Ideal Republic 1776 in British American colonies by helping American freedom fighters to free their lands from the British crown and to found The United States of America. British Empire paid back by helping French freedom fighters to make dream of the French scholars come true, to found French Republic in 1789, etc….Somehow very liberal King Louis XVI lost control, head and crown which the one Corsican Bouenaparté found in the gutter of the Revolution and became Napoleon I Emperor (!) of the French Republic (!) etc..Of course, neither generations after generations of historians, nor Hollywood scriptwriters can’t be totally in the wrong. After what was learned in school and university, no one you will easily believe that the classical history of ancient Rome, Greece, Asia, Egypt, China, Japan, India, etc., is manifestly false. Everyone will indignantly point the accusing finger to the gigantic pyramids in Egypt, to the Coliseum in Rome and Great Wall of China etc., and claim, aren't they really ancient, thousands of years ancient?Certainly they were built before the 15th century. No doubt whatsoever that the Renaissance artists, sculptors, architects and engineers have not built pyramids in Egypt or gigantic palaces in Persia, Great Wall in China, etc.. But a closer look at ‘evidence’ of the age of 777 Wonders of the Antiquity a suspicion that they were built 3-5 hundred years before, not thousands of years earlier.It just happens that there is no valid irrefutable scientific proof that ALL ‘ancient’ artefacts are much older than 1000 years contrary to the self fulfilling radiocarbon dating obligingly rubber-stamped by radiocarbon labs to the prescriptions of the mainstream historians. How heartbreaking is that the oldest ORIGINAL written documents that can be reliably, irrefutably and unambiguously dated belong only to the 11th century!All dirty and worn out originals have somehow disappeared in the Very Dark Ages, as illiterate but tidy monks kept only brand new copies. Better yet, most of the very old original document of 11th-13th tell very peculiar stories completely out of line with the consensual history.Statistical research firmly asserts that Homo sapiens invented writing (Chinese hieroglyphics including) only about 1000 years ago. Once invented, writing skills were immediately and irreversibly put to the use of ruling powers and science. Gentlemen, kindly don’t wave the Dead Sea scrolls at us, for these scrolls may be very fragile and dusty, but they are very probably of medieval make.For the heavens sake, don’t quote endless wisdoms of Confucius allegedly from 551 B.C. These wisdoms are no more than top quality product of teamwork of learned Jesuit-infiltrators to China and Lettered Chinese (who played along) of 16th-18th century. The case of ‘Ancient’ China is even funnier as there is not ONE single piece of firm written evidence or artefact that can be reliably, independently and irrefutably dated older than the 15th century! The clean up of all things written ordered by the Manjou dynasty, which took (with sword, etc..) over from the Ming dynasty in 1644 A.D. was very thorough. ALL majestic Chinese inventions like powder, silk, paper are of the European and Middle Eastern origin.Don’t throw at us the Sinai Codex Book from the British Museum either. British Museum coughed up £100 000 ( £5 000 000 in today’s pounds) to buy from illiterate Russian Bolsheviks in 1932. This precious Codex is also early medieval at best. German Indiana Tischendorff dug it personally from the wastebasket of St Catherine’s monastery in Sinai (fact!), invented a ‘science’ of palaeography, proved with his ‘science’ the biblical age of the Codex, presented it to the Tsar-Emperor Alexander II of the Russian Empire, reaped the tsar’s ransom of 50 000 gold roubles ($ 10 000 000 today) and was ennobled as Russian Count. Fact.Early in life, we learn about ancient history in school. Children love the magical lessons of history - they are real-life fairy tales. Teachers recite breathtaking stories; very soon we learn by heart the names and deeds of brave warriors, wise philosophers, fabulous pharaohs, cunning high priests and greedy scribes. We learn of gigantic pyramids and sinister castles, kings and queens, dukes and barons, powerful heroes and beautiful ladies, emaciated saints and low-life traitors. We are caught up in tales of cruel wars, merciless Roman legions conquering everything in sight, noble knights, crusades and contests. We are thrilled by perilous sea voyages and discoveries, passions and adventures. Wow, we love it!As we grow up, our love of history grows even stronger and turns us into history buffs. We watch megalomaniac breathtaking Hollywood productions in 2D, 3D, read historical fiction, buy glossy and expensive books about mysteries of history, admire archaeological finds and digs, go to museums, travel to Egypt , Rome , Greece, India and China to see it all with our own eyes. Oh yes, we understand at last the true meaning of the universal world history, ah, we see the rise and, ouch, the fall of civilizations. The CIVILIZATION began so very-very long ago. It was antediluvian may be?There is just TOO MUCH fantasy to be found in history. The ‘ancient history’ of Antiquity and the Middle Ages is an enormous edifice of unspeakable perfection and beauty BUT literally left hanging in the air. It simply has no proven and reliably dated documentary foundation. The consensual version of World history generally accepted today is based on presumptions. You might indignantly object that there are innumerable historical documents, manuscripts, ancient papyri, parchments, old and not so old books, buzzing with references to, from and about the past. There appears to be more than enough historical material to easily reconstruct completely the glorious past!Oh yes, there are ‘documents’ and ‘stories’ in abundance to generate multitudes of dazzling Hollywood blockbusters, such as “Gladiatorâ€, “Troyâ€, “Alexander†with the convincing acting of Russell Crow or Brad Pitt; enough sizzling ideas for a further barnburners like “Da Vinci codeâ€, etc... but it is wrong to presume that the reconstruction of the past is simple. Lucas & Co take an ancient chronicle, translate it into contemporary language, and that's it. History is reconstructed to the last detail?But that is not so!Ancient history is first of all, a written history based on the following sources: documents, manuscripts, printed books, paintings, monuments and artefacts. When a school textbook tells us that Genghis Khan in year MMM A.D or Alexander the Great in the year NNN B.C. have each conquered half of the world, it means only that it is so said in some of the written sources. Seemingly simple questions practically never have clear, unambiguous answers. When were these sources written? Where and by whom were they found? For each of these questions, the answers are very complex and require in-depth research.It is further WRONGLY presumed that there are numerous carefully preserved ancient and medieval chronicles readily available, written by Genghis Khan's or Alexander the Great contemporaries and eyewitnesses to their fantastic conquests, which are kept today in the National Library of Republic of Mongolia or Greece; or in the Library of Congress, or in the private collection of Microsoft. Zilch comma zilch sources come from contemporaries and eyewitnesses: Mongols were a nomad and illiterate bunch, sweet Alexander lived so long ago that most 100% reliable sources know for sure he was the son of Zeus, right? Wrong, we have not seen Alexander’s birth certificate, not even a copy, and Zeus doesn’t answer the phone.Too bad, only fairly recent sources of information are available, having been written hundreds or even thousands of years after the alleged events. In most cases ‘sources’ have been written only in the XVI-XVIII centuries, or even later. As a rule, these ‘sources’ suffered after their discovery considerable multiple manipulations, falsifications and distortions by editing to this or other order of this or another power in command of the day. At the same time, innumerable originals of ancient documents under pretext of heresy were DESTROYED in Europe.Of course, some real events were the source of most written documents, even those that were later falsified and manipulated. However, the same real event could have been described in chronicles by authors writing in different languages and having contradictory points of view. There are many cases where such are plainly unrecognizable as the same event.The names of persons and geographical sites often changed meaning and location during the course of the centuries. The exact same name could take on an entirely different meaning in different historical epochs. Geographical locations were clearly defined on maps, only with the advent of printing. This made possible the circulation of identical copies of the same map for purposes in the fields of the military, navigation, education and governance, etc. Before the invention of printed maps, each original map was a unique work of art, both beautiful, non-exact and contradictory.Mainstream Historians from Oxbridge say: «stop... everybody knows that Julius Caesar lived in the first century B.C. Do you really doubt it?» Yes, we really do. For us this statement is only a point of view that is dominant today. But it is only one of many possible points of view until the very fact of his life and deeds is proven.In turn, we will also ask some simple questions: where did you get your information? from a textbook? That’s not good enough. Who was the first to say that Julius Caesar lived in the first century B.C.? What book, document and/or manuscript can you quote as a primary source? Who is the author of this source? When and by whom was this primary source written down and where discovered, if you please?We do not accept «the textbook says so» type of answer as proof. As soon as you dig for proof slightly deeper than the school textbook, the adamant grounds for the totally and utterly dominant point of view suddenly evaporate. The whole world community of professional historians will not be able to come with up irrefutable documentary proof that Julius Caesar EVER existed, be it on paper, papyri, parchment or stone. Same story for ALL great names of Antiquity. The proof is unavailable!Oxbridge mainstream historians say: “here is the ancient chronicle written in the twelfth century A.D., which clearly says, 'Julius Caesar lived in the first century B.C. '.†But what proves that this chronicle was written in the twelfth century and not in the sixteenth century, that happens to be the age oldest copy the chronicle they quote? Is your written source scientifically dated? You know, the bronze (plastic or cardboard) panel made in the twenty-first century with the lettering: “Temple of Jupiter built in I century B.C. by the personal command of the Great Magnificent Caesar the Emperor of Rome†is hanging on the ancient looking edifice is not irrefutable proof of when, why, or what it was built for, even if the building is located in Rome, Italy, European Community.Indeed, the dating itself of the chronicle by the twelfth century has to be proven. That is where the buck stops. Actually, nobody is capable to prove the date of the writing of their «old» written sources irrefutably or produce independent datings of any of the ancient artefacts.Better yet - most of the rare sources that survived to our day and can be reliably dated back to the XI-XIV centuries do not show the polished textbook picture of classical history. They show a picture utterly different. Therefore such witnesses and sources are NOT ADMISSABLE to the orderly court of history. Period. Learned historians know better, they say that such sources are primitive and full of errors, wrong names and locations, chronologically impossible situations, etc .. They claim these sources are unfortunate concoctions of half illiterate monks, completely illiterate hermits and misguided travellers - therefore they cannot be accepted to the sacred temple of universal classical history.Dating of sourcesAll existing methods of dating of old and ancient sources and artefacts are both non-exact and contradictory. This is unfortunately the case for archaeological, dendro-chronological, palaeographical and carbon dating. Judge for yourself:Archaeological dating:in an Egyptian dig of a pharaoh burial site attributed to 16th - 19th dynasty, (1500 years B.C. - this is allegedly known for a fact!) - an archaeologist finds a pot from allegedly Ancient Greece ; lets call it Article A , attributed to the Mycenae culture. It is inferred that they are from the same age: (1500 years B.C ). Logical. In another dig in Greece, definitely attributed to the Mycenae culture, another archaeologist finds a "peculiar" button; lets call it: Article B, next to a similar pot; and it is inferred that they are from the same age (1500 B.C ) as: (Age of Article A = age of Article B). OK. In further digs in Germany, archaeologists find other objects next to similar "peculiar" buttons, so it is also inferred that all these objects: Articles C, D,...N, found in the German dig have the same age: (1500 years B.C). Logical? Seems so.But next day the archaeologists in Sweden find additional exactly the same "peculiar" buttons in a dig of the fairly recent dolmen burial of King Bjorn (born 953 A.D), presumably irrefutably dated by the 10th century A D . Therefore, "peculiar" button “proves†that King Bjorn lived 2500 years ago and burial dolmen irrefutably proves that he was buried 1500 years later? Not so logical anymore. Archaeologists call such a case a "mystery" – and .. sweep it under the carpet. Forget about logic! Archaeological dating therefore is BY DEFINITION completely and inevitably SUBJECTIVE.Radio-carbon method:Very sorry about c14 radiocarbon dating methods, the poor Nobel Libby must be turning in his grave after ‘calibration’ of his method (pity that!). By ‘calibration’ on statistically non-significant number of wood samples from Egypt with ARBITRARELY suggested alleged age of 3100 B.C. the Arizona university radiocarbon team simply smuggled the consensual chronology into c14 method of dating, turning it into a sheer fallacy. Dr Libby honestly earned his Nobel by developing a valid dating method (albeit a very pollution sensitive one), and on the top of it this method became very un-precise because of unknown tonnages of c14 isotope that were dumped into atmosphere in the course of US-USSR-France-UK nuclear tests in the friendly nuclear race of the fifties.The c14 radiocarbon dating procedure runs as follows: archaeologist sends an artefact to a radiocarbon dating laboratory with his idea of the age of the object to get a to ‘scientific’ rubber-stamp. Laboratory gladly complies and makes required radio dating, confirming the date suggested by archaeologist. Everybody’s happy: lab makes good money by making an expensive test, archaeologist by reaping the laurels for his earth shattering discovery. The in-built low precision (because of sensitivity) of this method allows cooking scientifically looking results desired by the customer archaeologist. General public doesn’t realize that it was duped again.Just try to submit to any c14 lab a sample of organic matter and ask them to date it. The lab will ask your idea of the age of the sample, then it fiddles with the lots of knobs (‘fine-tuning’) and gives you the result as you’ve ‘expected’. With c14 dating method being so mind bogglingly precise C14 labs decline making 'black box' test of any kind absolutely. Nah, they assert that because their method is SO very sensitive they must have maximum information about the sample. This much touted method often produces reliable dating of objects of organic origin with exactitude (mistakes that) of up to plus minus 1500 years, therefore it is too crude for dating of historical events in the 3000 years timeframe!Dendrochronological method:This method is unusable for dating reliably events in Europe older than 800 years. Samples from North America are reliably datable up to 5000 years, but are irrelevant for dating ancient of events in Europe, Africa or Asia. All methods of dating used today are not independent from the classical Scaliger chronology. Moreover all these "fine" methods were developed and calibrated on the basis of the classical chronology. Very Vicious circle! The dendro-chronology in Europe and Minor Asia was ‘ordered’ to expand its scale over 12 500 years, which is another fallacy as the number of ancient samples presented is simply statistically non-significant.Why is this so?The ‘sources’ are part of the classical chronology. Most Greek, Roman, medieval chronicles, annals and memoirs were massively produced in XVI-XVIII centuries. In fact, for the last 400 years, the whole class of historians created, researched, perfected and polished a world of phantom universal history and classical civilization artfully constructed by their predecessors in the course of XVI-XVIII centuries at the command of powers of that time. They have literally polished the real world history into oblivion!Therefore the ancient history taught in school is not truth in the final instance; it is only the currently dominant and indoctrinated version of history. Until the contrary is proved, it is only one of the possible versions with an inbuilt bug of popery chronology. The consensual version of chronology is based on a «chronological hypothesis», formulated for first time by the chronologists and historians Joseph Scaliger (1540-1609, leading cabbalist of his time) and Dionysus Petavius (1583-1652, high ranking Jesuit of his time). Their chronology is about as irrefutable as the quadrature of the circle of which Joseph Scaliger was an anecdotic, but ferocious protagonist.Genuflect and admire the Almagest, which lies as the solid foundation to the entire edifice of contemporary chronology! Almagest is supposed to have been written in the II century AD by Ptolemy, the founding grandfather of astronomy. This presumably antediluvian tractate catalogues 1028 observable stars with a fairly high precision of 10'-15' (arc minutes) of longitude. Now, the rotation of the Earth makes the night sky make a turn of 1 arc degree every four minutes. One arc degree consists of 60 arc minutes, which means that the sky rotation speed equals 15' (arc minutes) per one minute of time. Ptolemy's very precise measurements were simply too precise to have been performed with the existing time measurement instruments existing in the alleged II century A.D. Ptolemy of the II century A.D. had at his disposal a sundial, a clepsydra (water jug with a hole), or an sand hourglass. None of this contraptions has precision to a minute. Could he have used his Grandfather's Swiss chronometer that had a minute hand? This seems improbable considering that minute hands are a novelty introduced to clocks only as recently as 1550 AD.Another solid pillar of universal history is the Bronze Age, that has supposedly taken place 3-5 thousands of years ago. The many numerous armies of alleged Antiquity, i.e. Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome were all armed with hundreds of thousands of bronze swords, knives, etc.. . Scores of thousands of tons of bronze had to be manufactured every year for each valiant army that according to ‘sources’ counted hundreds of thousands of brave warriors. Now, to make bronze you need 90% copper and 10% tin, meaning that you need thousands of tons of copper and tin per year. Even more, if you count tonnages needed for house utensils for the wives of the warriors. Right? Yes, but the technology for crude industrial tin extraction dates back as late as 14-th century A.D.The learned chronologists like Scaliger & Co did not bother to consult a chemist or alchemist. They have been driven by altogether different considerations, neither caring much for tin, nor indeed for science itself! As a result, 'ancient' Greek heroes (like Brad Pitt in «Troy») happily hack at each other with bronze swords that need tin for their manufacture, but which has not been discovered as yet !Do explore, google, wiki the points (non-exhaustive) we made and, step by step, you will find on Your own sufficient proof to reach the inevitable conclusion that the classical Scaliger-Petavius chronology built on cabbalistic numbers is false and therefore, that the history of ancient and medieval world built on this chronology and universally accepted today, is also false. After reading these books you will certainly have a fresh and very suspicious outlook on everything said or printed about "ancient" and "enigmatic" Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Persian and Chinese medieval as well as all other "lost and found" civilizations.Henry Ford once said: "History is more or less bunk! ".Prominent mathematician Anatoly Fomenko proved it.PS: Back in USSR back in 1973 one young and talented mathematician Dr Fomenko worked in the Russian Lunar landing program developing high precision mathematical models of Earth-Moon system. He got his initial impulse to look closer into the ancient history from the book “Crime of Claudius Ptolemy†by American astrophysicist Robert Newton (sic!). For his brilliant research in applied mathematics Fomenko was nominated the Full Member of the Academy of USSR, quite a sensation then, as he was only 30 years old and actually the youngest Full Member ever elected to the Academy.Just a douzen of years later he was badly mauled by the soviet and communist mainstream historians for ANTISOVIET and ANTIRUSSIAN activity for his application of mathematics to classical world history . Today the same indignant crowd of Russian (formerly soviet & staunch communist) mainstream historians attack him on his alleged Russian nationalism. DIRT CHEAP. True, Dr Fomenko’s is Russian, also true that his theory find instant sympathy with Russian nationalistic crowd, but this sympathy immediately evaporates and turns into hate as soon as the same Russian nationalists discover too their dismay that in Dr Fomenko’s books ancient Russians are not blue-eyed blonde Slavic-Nordic Arians, but Turks, Tartars, Arabs and some Slavs. Better yet, Dr Fomenko dares to assert that the glorious 1100 years of noble Russia is a pack of lies invented by German historians imported by Peter Great.Actually, there wasn’t a single scientifically valid refutation of his theory. Lobby of mainstream historians have hired a couple of scientists from astronomy and physics, who cooked up ‘ scientific’ refutations allowing historians to slap a ‘pseudo-science’ sticker to Dr Fomenko’s theories. What the mainstream historians don’t say that our good Doctor has did not take long to refute the said ‘refutations’ in a very academic fashion.PPS:We have here a true paradigm shift going through its works:01 complacency and/or marginalization02 ridicule03 criticism04 acceptanceLooks it will take a while before reaching step 04.PPPS:Anecdotic evidence of the ‘ancient’ history made up today:Following disintegration of the USSR Evil Empire, the mainstream of ex-soviet historians has disintegrated into Russian, Ukrainian, Kazakhstan main-mid-min-streams, each one contradicting completely other’s ‘ancient’ history.
Dr. Fomenko et al have read Wikipedia article about their New Chronology theory, found it fairly scientific and are ready repent and to retract at sight on the condition that:- radiocarbon dating methods pass the 'black box' tests, or- astronomy refutes their results on ancient eclipses, or- US astrophysicist Robert Newton was proved wrong to accuse Ptolemy of his crime.Pity, historians do not, can not, and will not comply. The radiocarbon dating labs run their very costly tests ordered by historians only if the sample to be dated is accompanied with an idea of its age prescribed by historians. Radiocarbon labs eagerly fiddle and finetune to get the dates “to order†of historians. Circulus Vicious is perfect.New Chronology theory goes through usual step by step paradigm shift:a) complacency and/or marginalizationb) ridiculec) criticismd) acceptance
When the clergy took over the control of Chronology in XVIcy it was a part of mathematics. Saint Augustine warned: 'be wary of mathematicians, particularly when they speak the truth !' Prescient. Today the mathematicians took it back and checked it. The scientific approach to the World History with ways and means of exact sciences shows: all real events that took place over 1200 years ago as well as people who allegedly acted in them are simply unknown to us and will stay so forever. Ancient Egypt, Europe, Rome, China, India, etc..etc histories are figmental prior to that date. Home sapiens could neither read nor write at that time. That was prehistory. Everything told to us about pre-1200 years ago events is fiction. Human 'civilization' had yet to be worked out. Civilization started its relentness progress in 800 A.D., developed its major features like writing, communications, religions and & arts, centralized civil and military management approx. by 1000 A.D. That was 'ancient' history. Nearly nothing is about this period known for sure. 'Antiquity ' is label applied to figmental events and people that allegedly lived prior to 800 A.D, but actually happened in 1000 A.D.– 1500 A.D. All written, artistic, even architectural artifacts presented as being older than 1200 years are found upon scrutiny either as machinations and falsifications performed by the white and black clergy, artists, architects, sculptors during 1400 A.D. - 2000 A.D. or misinterpretations and misdating of events taking place in 1000 A.D.– 1500 A.D.Issues with the mainstream Word History : there are no chronicles irrefutably proven to be older than 1400 A.D. Subjective methods of dating documents and/or artifacts used arbitrarily, the objective methods of dating evaded. The famous radiocarbon-14C dating method lost its precision due to numerous nuclear tests in 1945-1964 and doesn't stand the black box test (alleged age of sample to test has to be told first. Sic !). Radiocarbon-14C initial calibration was made on samples from 'ancient' Egypt, the age of samples was set arbitrarily. Astronomy contradicts consensual history. Ptolemy is reliably datable to XVI cy. All solar and lunar eclipses described in chronicles dated prior to XVIcy to stress the importance of events and people acting in them actually never took place in locations at moments of time therein indicated. 6000 years long Chinese History is even more bogus than European . It is high time for the mainstream historians to stop bickering and to re-start the world history as science. Don't not coin history pls.
Maps and Coins vs History (History: Fiction or Science?) (Volume 17) PDF
Maps and Coins vs History (History: Fiction or Science?) (Volume 17) EPub
Maps and Coins vs History (History: Fiction or Science?) (Volume 17) Doc
Maps and Coins vs History (History: Fiction or Science?) (Volume 17) iBooks
Maps and Coins vs History (History: Fiction or Science?) (Volume 17) rtf
Maps and Coins vs History (History: Fiction or Science?) (Volume 17) Mobipocket
Maps and Coins vs History (History: Fiction or Science?) (Volume 17) Kindle
Maps and Coins vs History (History: Fiction or Science?) (Volume 17) PDF
Maps and Coins vs History (History: Fiction or Science?) (Volume 17) PDF
Maps and Coins vs History (History: Fiction or Science?) (Volume 17) PDF
Maps and Coins vs History (History: Fiction or Science?) (Volume 17) PDF
