re: Mathematician: history is fake

quote:

---

I mean history sort of is fake. You get the winning sides version of it but nothing else.

---

That's not really true anymore. We can get the winning side and the losing side, because it was very rare for a group to be so completely defeated that they had no remaining members left. It also depends on what era we are discussing. Anything earlier than the Middle Ages is likely to be fragmentary, but the historical record from the early Modern period onward is much clearer.

quote:

---

I’m saying the obvious: nobody wants to be conquered, even if the conquerors are relatively polite about it. A nice conqueror is still an invader and shouldn’t be considered a “good guy”.

---

That's the point of the OP. The only reason you call them invaders today, was because you were told that, by people that wanted to paint them that way

We are told that Abe Lincoln is a good guy. But more Americans were killed by their govt in his 4 years, than all the other presidents combined over a span of 238 years. People of his day hated Lincoln enough to put a bullet in his brain.

Yet Trumps slays the poon, and they want him out of office

History cannot be trusted

I prefer the Phanton Time Hypothesis which is mentioned in the link you sent. Basically, between what we know of as the years 325-1000AD, only 378 years actually passed. It's not that there's 297 years of pure fakery, but simply that the events we prescribe to those "Dark Ages" actually occurred during a shorter period of time. Some of the evidence for this includes:
297 year gap in new building dedications in Constantinople
Archaeological remains of Romanesque buildings in modern day France dated to centuries after Rome was supposed to have already fallen.
Evidence suggesting the rise of Islam may have happened earlier than originally thought

quote:

---

At the heart of Illig’s theory is a conspiracy between the Holy Roman Emperor Otto III, Pope Sylvester II and maybe even Byzantine Emperor Consantine VII (gasp, not Constantine!). Illig claims that, in an effort to reconfigure things so that they could place themselves at the big, fancy, nice-looking year 1000, the trio rejiggered the calendar, fictionalized the whole of the Carolingian period – including Charlemagne – in the process. Basically, these three guys got together, decided the best way to hold onto power was through some symbolic date-based numerology, and then moved heaven and earth to make it happen.

---

LINK

The Phantom Time theory does have some critical evidence against it, however:
1. the reign of Charlemaigne and the Carolingian dynasty would have to be a forgery (possible to give legitimacy to Otto)
2. Records for dates of celestial events that match current models
3. removing those years would throw the West out of wack with the Tang dynasty's records in China

Interesting stuff, but probably complete poppycock.

Besides, the oldest copies we have of portions of the 5 books of Moses date back to 150 BC, not the 16th Century.

I think there's a lot we're not being told about human history in antiquity, but I don't think there's some grand lie going around about the post-Roman period (due to the Romans having kept such detailed records which survived to the time of the Renaissance thanks to Persian and Byzantine libraries raided during the Crusades and the founding of Western Universities to teach these works).

I think the history of the pre-Roman period (especially pre-Alexander) is absolutely filled with holes. For example, where did all of the bronze come from? Well, archaeology in the Great Lakes region suggests it came from there. However, do we have a civilization that was mining it and shipping it to Europe in our textbooks? No we don't.

I think the history of the Americas is completely misunderstood. There are pyramids, mounds, and geoglyphs all over the Americas that don't match up to the history taught in schools.

It's only recently that scientists have begun to understand that the Amazon Rain Forest may not have been natural, but planted. That the Amazon wasn't some sparcely populated jungle pre-Columbus, but supported some kind of massive, advanced, completely lost civilization that created it. That's why when the rain forest is cut down, the soil is actually very poor and won't grow much of anything. The ancients had a technique only recently rediscovered to make the amazon soil work. LINK

History is based on actual characters and events. However do not believe it is the black and white facts. History is propaganda biased for the winners and current leaders as well as rewritten to appease the social constructs of any given time.

Stephen Hawking also recently said mathematics is wrong, however it's the best we currently have to try to explain many things. He says in the future when we figure out demensions time travel etc it will be when we have advanced beyond mathematics to a bette way.

quote:

---

You got downvoted Bc you are arguing that the Persians are the good guys for invading and trying to conquer Greece. Yes, we all know the Persians were cultured and sophisticated and freed Babylon’s exiles, including Israel. But how does that make them “good guys” when they were the invaders?

---

The question is did they have oil or weapons of mass destruction?

Very nice post.

It’s also worth noting that there is a cabal of anthropologists/historians/Egyptologists that are actively ignoring data that clearly shows that Egypt as a civilization existed much earlier than initially believed and that there were many advanced civilizations during when we assume only hunters and garherers existed and that a significant extermination event happened around 13,000 B.C.

So while it isn’t a lie, there’s absolutely a mafia of gatekeepers who are obscuring and minimizing the evidence being revealed to save their asses.

Sure, and modern revisionist historians are doing their part to muddy the waters as well. They are just the latest to engage in re-writing, it goes on continuously as fads come and go. True objectivity is exceptionally rare when history is being written.

The saying "hindsight is 20/20" is nonsense.

Well someone listens to dan carlin

quote:

---

It's only recently that scientists have begun to understand that the Amazon Rain Forest may not have been natural, but planted. That the Amazon wasn't some sparcely populated jungle pre-Columbus, but supported some kind of massive, advanced, completely lost civilization that created it. That's why when the rain forest is cut down, the soil is actually very poor and won't grow much of anything. The ancients had a technique only recently rediscovered to make the amazon soil work. LINK

---