Chronology: how old is America?

Decided to share a few chronology related speculations of mine. Chronology is the science of locating historical events in time, they say. As it stands, the narrative compliant chronology is in total disarray. Below are my thoughts. I am not claiming that anything you see below is correct. I did notice a few peculiar details, and ended up playing with some numbers.
  • I will point out a few chronology (number-related) coincidences.
  • I will speculate a lot, because some things are perceived before they get substantiated by proof.
    • I might fall flat on my face in the process.
  • Could it be that both Americas were created/moved into their current positions between 321 and 529 years ago?
    • This is not the main topic of this article, but it does serve as a decent clickbait headline, lol.

Here are some of the dates used:
  • 1492: America (aka the New World) was discovered.
  • 1700: Russian Calendar Reform.
    • 7208: Creation of Peace in the Star Temple, or Creation of the World in the Star Temple.
    • 01/01/1700. Russia awoke that day, not to the year 7208, but to 1700.
  • 376 - 476: The fall of the Western Roman Empire.
  • 1453: The fall of the Eastern Roman Empire aka The Byzantine Empire
  • 1152: The birth of Jesus, per Fomenko.
1000 Added Years
- or 1,000 plus -
Some of us suspect that there was an extra thousand years added to our historical time line. It appears that the so-called "Dark Ages" were made up to "supersize" our history. We have Mr. Fomenko to thank for bringing the issue to our attention. For those marinating in this topic, the problem is undeniable. At the same time there is no consensus on why this extra millennium might have been added to our time line.
  • Contributing factors: j, J, i, I
Fomenko suggested that these letters stood for:
Naturally, 1576 AD would not be equal to I576.
  • 1576 - year 1576 from Jesus
  • I576 - year 576 from Jesus
  • I576 + 1000 = 1576
  • I576 ≠ 1576
The above explanation appears to be working until we run into dates looking like this.


1747 Source


1705 Source


1656 Source

If the PTB chronology is correct, the same should apply for j and J. But I'm not sure it does. Let's take a look at this 1652 map.
1652 Nova Totius Terrarum Orbis geographica ac hydrographica tabula_1_1.jpg

Here is what 1s and 7s look like on the same map.


If this here is year 1587...


Then what year is this? j615, 7615 or 1615?


Other similar maps have something like this on:

To make matters a bit more complicated, I have to offer you the below tables from this book published in MDCLXXXV aka 1685.
  • It's kind of funny, but "I" aka "1" is the only clearly identifiable and consistent figure.



Life is not gonna get any easier when we move on to coins. The below 1717 coin demonstrates that a familiar looking "1" was clearly known at some point.



Unfortunately, we do not really know when that "some point" happened, for we also have coins with "1s" looking like this.

1717 coin.jpg

Well, and let's not forget about "I's".

1713 1741 coin.jpg

Source (click through coins)

Yet, things are not as clear as they appear to be. Let's turn to "Js". What year is this?
  • Georgius II minted in J737? Why not I737 to signify 1737.



Who knows what year is on the coins below?

Now, when we are clear as mud on coins, let's take a look at this woodcut.
  • "The wedding of the dwarf Yakim Volkov on November 14, 1710 in the palace of Prince A. D. Menshikov in St. Petersburg"
  • The engraving is dated 1711.
It's a mess as you can see. We have some weird symbol (I cannot reproduce) and a letter similar to "j" indicating "1" We also have "J" = "7".



Will add one more engraving I found on reddit.
  • On the twenty-ninth day of August J782, his Majesty's Ship the ROYAL GEORGE, being on the heel of Spithead overset and sunk; by which fatal accident about nine hundred persons were instantly launched into eternity: among whom was the brave and experienced officer Rear Admiral KEMPENFELT.

Source: Full Image

Here is what it says at the bottom of the image. Are we sure that the image was published shortly after it was created?
  • Why did they use "J" when they clearly could print "1"?

Note: This type of images are dime a dozen. You can easily google-search some out if you want.

What a Mess...
As I see it, if there indeed was some meddling with our chronology, it did not happen overnight. In other words, there had to be a period where two or more chronological systems co-existed. This would have resulted in an overlap of chronological systems.
  • Could it be that, for whatever "post-event" reason, around i475-i492 it was assumed that "i,I,j,J - from Jesus" was "1", and when the mistake was realized, it was too late to get it corrected?
  • Equally, could it be that those with authority did know the true meaning of "i,I,j,J" but chose to adjust our history by adding an extra millennium to the time line?
  • Under what circumstances could either one happen without masses (of people) noticing?

We are told that Joseph Justus Scaliger (1540-1609) and a French Jesuit Dionysius Petavius (1583-1652) were the ones who gave us what we have.
  • Scaliger's De emendatione temporum (1583) revolutionized perceived ideas of ancient chronology. It showed that ancient history was not confined to that of the Greeks and Romans, but also comprised that of the Persians, the Babylonians and the Egyptians, hitherto neglected, and that of the Jews, hitherto treated as a thing apart.
    • Scaliger succeeded in reconstructing the lost Chronicle of Eusebius - one of the most valuable ancient documents, especially valuable for ancient chronology. This he printed in 1606 in his Thesaurus temporum, in which he collected, restored, and arranged every chronological relic extant in Greek or Latin.
  • Petavius had inserted some masterly dissertations on chronology; in 1627 he brought out his De doctrina temporum, and later the Tabulae chronologicae (1628, 1629, 1633, 1657).
    • It surpassed Scaliger's De Emendatione temporum (Paris, 1583), and prepared the ground for the works of the Benedictines.
An Opinion: If i564, or j564 were indeed meant to mean year 564 and not 1564, we won't find much of the original meaning after (approximately) the narrative compliant year 1475. After ~1475 (=i475) the adjustments started being made. Book and archive burnings ensured that very little evidence of meddling survived. By the time Scaliger came about, he simply improved the new narrative.
  • Old: i, I, j, J were still used as intended and meant "year from Jesus".
  • Mixed:There were still plenty of texts, but a new doctrine started to form.​
  • Fixed: After approximately 1700, the new narrative was getting actively pushed into masses. Some still knew their history, but numbers were quickly diminishing.​
Unfortunately, the oldest printed texts we see are dated with late 1500s. And those are very hard to read. Imho, some of the pre-1475 narrative noncompliant printed books were copied by hand, and turned into narrative compliant copies of the non-existent originals.
  • With coins, things were a bit harder to adjust... or so it seems.
Look at the font complexity of the 1454-55 Gutenberg Bible. This is allegedly the earliest major book printed using mass-produced movable metal type (in Europe, of course). Who in the sane state of mind could dream up this sophisticated typeface to start a book printing business with, when progressing from hand-written texts? But...
  • Between 1436 and 1450 Johannes Gutenberg developed hardware and techniques for casting letters from matrices using a device called the hand mould.
  • Gutenberg's key invention and contribution to movable-type printing in Europe, the hand mould, was the first practical means of making cheap copies of letterpunches in the vast quantities needed to print complete books, making the movable-type printing process a viable enterprise.
  • Source

Compare to the typeface used in 1681. Which one would you rather make a hand mould for 400-500 years ago?
  • By the way, these two typefaces are ~230 years apart.
  • Were they regressing, or what?
text 168.jpg

1492, 7208 and 1700
Methinks, these dates are pretty significant. On one hand we have 1492 aka the year Mr. Columbus (allegedly) discovered Americas. On the other hand we have Russians waking up to the year 1700. Yet, they have never experienced year 1699. Why? Because when they went to bed on the 31st of December, their year was 7207. They never woke up to the year 7208 due to the calendar reform. What's the common denominator there?
  • Columbus discovered the "New World" in 1492
  • In 1700 in Russia they would have had year 7208 from the "Creation of the World in the Star Temple".
  • Naturally we have a "New World" and a "Created World".

A Star Temple
As it was mentioned prior, the Russians used to count their years from the "Creation of the World in the Star Temple". Noone really knows what that means. As such, it is open to interpretation. The below image is indicative of my interpretation of the "Star Temple". Methinks, the "Temple" could mean our Terrarum.



It appears that we have the following:
  • Year 7208 "from the creation of the World in the Star temple" equals...
  • Year 1700 from Jesus
This is the point where I would like to bring up this 1492 (allegedly) map of the world authored (allegedly) by Martin Behaim.
  • I understand that most of you have seen this map before.
    • I also know that some of you did not see the version with additional lands up north.
    • And most of us have never considered the fact that the map is incomplete due to being cut off at the top.
      • Where is the rest of the map?
It's pretty obvious that this map does not have neither North nor South American continents on it. The reasons could be self-explanatory. The "New World" was yet to be discovered.


Well, what if both Americas were indeed depicted on the above map, and in 1492 or i492 were somehow moved to their current position?
  • Hence, Atlantis/Hyperborea ended up getting sunk/moved, to a new location.
  • I understand that it sounds uber ridiculous, but it was not me who said that truth was stranger than fiction.

I'm not suggesting that something of this magnitude happened overnight. It might have taken years... may be tens of years. An event of such proportions could have been accompanied by some major surface catastrophes, cataclysms and calamities.


I suspect that what you see below, did not happen during the suggested span of 1,260 years. Methinks that all these different cataclysms happened within a relatively short period of time.
  • 641 - 381 = 225 years? But... and it is my personal opinion, we are talking about less than a 75 year span.
  • On a separate note, after reading the below, our year 2020 does not look that bad.




This here is my favorite one. Those narrative compilers had to be super bored to come up with such bullshit.
  • Prince Popiel ІІ was a legendary 9th century ruler of the West Slavic tribe of Goplans and Polans and the last member of the pre-Piast dynasty, the Popielids.
  • As the story goes, a throng of mice and rats (which had been feeding on the unburnt bodies of Popiel's uncles) rushed into the tower, chewed through the walls, and devoured Popiel and his wife alive.

What would the outcome of something like that result in? This?

ruins of rome 1.jpg


Heck, who knows? May be it looked like this...

The Great Boston Fire of 1872-1.jpg


An explanation: I'm suggesting that the "New World" discovered by Columbus and the "Creation of the World in the Star Temple" were the same event. If this was indeed the case, it would mean that:
  • Year 1492 = Year 1700 = Year 7208.
An alternate way to present the above dates looks like this:
  • Year i492 = Year 1700 = Year 7208.
I think that year 492 was counted from Jesus, and year 1700 (being post-Scaligarian) already had an extra 1,000 years incorporated into it. I will jump ahead and proceed with the following speculations:
  • 1700 - 1492 = 208
  • 700 - 492 = 208
  • Year 7208 was in reality Year 208 from "Creation of the World in the Star Temple".
    • Year 7208 was interpreted incorrectly, and figure "7" suffered a fate similar to the one figure "1" did, when it was "confused" with "a letter". Or the other way around, a letter was confused (or intentionally misrepresented) with a figure.
To reemphasize: The discovery of America by Columbus and the "Creation of the World in the Star Temple" was the same event.
  • The reason they had to discover America was due to America not being there prior to 475-492.
Note: This is where we have to take a closer look at a few dates.
  • 7208 - the Creation of the World in the Star Temple
  • 475 - the Fall of the Western Roman Empire
  • 1453 - the Fall of the Eastern Roman Empire
  • 1492 - the Discovery of America
  • 472 - the eruption of Vesuvius
  • 1482 - the eruption of Vesuvius
  • 1631 - the eruption of Vesuvius
Year 7208 (format)
- From the Creation of the World in the Star Temple -​
Russia used the Byzantine calendar up to 1700. But... no Byzantine calendar sources mention "The Creation of the World in the Star Temple". These pages do, but none appear to be official.
The Byzantine calendar was the calendar used by the Eastern Orthodox Church from c. 691 to 1728 in the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
  • It was also the official calendar of the Byzantine Empire from 988 to 1453 and of Kievan Rus' and Russia from c. 988 to 1700.
  • Used in other areas of the Byzantine commonwealth such as in Serbia.
    • Note: Since Byzantine is a historiographical term, the original name uses the adjective "Roman" as it was what the Eastern Roman Empire continued calling itself.
    • LOL, how convenient.
There are many post-1700 coins dated using Cyrillic Numerals. Where are all pre-1700 Russian coins dated in a similar manner?


To evaluate a Cyrillic number, the values of all the figures are added up: for example, ѰЗ is 700 + 7, making 707. If the number is greater than 999 (ЦЧѲ), the thousands sign (҂) is used to multiply the number's value: for example, ҂Ѕ is 6000, while ҂Л҂В is parsed as 30,000 + 2000, making 32,000.
  • As far as I understand, we would need a coin dated with a number starting ҂Ѕ.
  • Every single coin I've see so far starts with ҂A, similar to the 1704 aka ҂AѰД one below.
    • For example, a coin dated with 6873 would have ҂ЅѾOГ on it. Not sure if I got it right.
    • Where are all these coins from 6000s?

In the process ran into the below page.
  • The reign of Peter the Great (1696-1725)
  • Until 1718, the year of minting on coins was indicated using the Cyrillic number system based on the alphabetical notation of numbers using the Cyrillic or Glagolitic alphabet (Table 1).
  • Starting in 1718, they began to switch to Arabic numerals.

This is like real bizarre.
  • I can't find any Russian pre-1700 dated coins.
  • I can't find any Russian book printed before 1700 and dated with a number starting with ҂Ѕ.
  • How do we know that this ҂ has anything to do with thousands?
  • May be @Cemen could help out with images of pre-1700s coins and/or documents.
Year: 475 = i475 = 1475?
I will start by saying that 475 is a very important year but it is also an approximate one. In my understanding, this year 475 from Jesus (whatever or whoever Jesus really was) falls within a range. I do not know the +/-, could be 50, or 75, or 100.

Those who follow me are aware that I share an opinion of the so-called Ancient Rome being grossly misrepresented. Yet, something did happen around 475 AD. The narrative insists that it was the gradual fall of the Western portion of the Roman Empire, with the official date of its dissolution being 476 AD.
  • And a millennium long Dark Ages period descended upon Europe.
    • Collapsed in 475 AD.
  • Yet somehow, the Eastern side survived and lasted a millennium longer.
    • Collapsed in 1453 AD.

One wouldn't have to be a brainiac to suspect that 475 AD and 1453 AD could either be about 22 years apart, and signified the end of the same historical entity (whatever it was).
  • This assumption requires being familiar with most of the articles present on this blog, or with the topic at hand in general.
This is the point, where some of the older texts could come helpful. Considering that we count from Jesus, I wanted to offer this Book of Revelation analysis done in 1690s.
  • We need to remember that 1690 was well into the post-Scaligarian time frame, and the dates could be off by ~1,000 years.
1693 Book
The contents, for the most part, are well beyond my level of comprehension. It does appear to me that what we have here, contains some sort of a key to the chronology shenanigans.
  • Note: Jehovah is a Latinization of the Hebrew יְהֹוָה‎ Yəhōwā, one vocalization of the Tetragrammaton יהוה‎ (YHWH), the proper name of the God of Israel in the Hebrew Bible and is considered one of the seven names of God in Judaism.
  • What could j or J really stand for?






I did read quite a few pages from the above book, and I'm not going to pretend that I understood their calculations. I thought I was close a few times, but that's where it ended. Yet, some things do not require too much brain:
  • How could "that prudent Historian" Socrates note Cyril of Alexandria in his works? Cyril of Alexandria was born 775 years after Socrates died.
  • Year 437 AD - the precise Year from whence the Lord of Times and Seasons thought good to date the beginning of his Times, or Reign.
    • Daniel 2:21 - It is God who alters the times and seasons, and he removes kings and promotes kings. He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to the discerning.
    • KD: Not like I'm questioning God here, but... why would God date the beginning of his Times starting with 437 AD?
      • And what could it mean for us and for chronological issues.
      • Could it be that 437 AD = i437 = j1? (Jehovah?)
  • Year 475 AD - the Fall of the Western Emperor.
    • This is the alleged fall of the narrative provided Western Roman Empire.
    • At the beginning of 476 AD, the Eighth King was supposed to come to power.
The Ten Kings of the Bible
I do not believe in prophesies, and I'm far from being religious. I think there are those who know, and those who don't. Imho, the Bible is either a preplanned (by the SkyLab) roadmap, or was written after the events took place. For what it's worth...

Revelation 17:9-11.
  • 9: This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated;
  • 10: they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, and when he does come he must remain only a little while.
  • 11: As for the beast that was and is not, it is an eighth but it belongs to the seven, and it goes to destruction.
Daniel 7:23-24.
  • 23: Thus he said: 'As for the fourth beast, there shall be a fourth kingdom on earth, which shall be different from all the kingdoms, and it shall devour the whole earth, and trample it down, and break it to pieces.
  • 24: As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings shall arise, and another shall arise after them; he shall be different from the former ones, and shall put down three kings.
It is my understanding that noone really knows who these seven kings were, let alone who the eighth (9th and 10th) was supposed to be.
  • Speculations are abundant: one, two, three, four, etc.​
  • To be honest, this stuff sounds like a child paraphrasing a technical manual he/she does not understand. Then the rest of the world is trying to recreate the technical manual based on the produced mumbo-jumbo. There we go...

For myself, I see the following:
  • Something happened... in 400s AD or 1400s or i400s or j400s
    • Western Roman Empire collapsed in 475 AD (possibly in i475 or 1475)
    • Eastern Roman empire collapsed in 1453 (possibly in i453 or 453 AD)
  • America was gifted to us in 1492 (possibly in i475 or 475 AD)
  • The printing press invented in Europe in 1440s (possibly in i440s or 440s AD)
  • 450s AD (and slightly beyond) were one endless cataclysm
  • Vesuvius erupted in 472 AD (possibly in 1472 or i472 or 1482 or i482 or 482 AD)
  • Peter the Great possibly accepted the standard in 1492 (possibly in i492 or 492 AD)
  • Etc, etc, etc...
And all of this was followed up with the emergence of the Capriccio Ruin depicting Art.

Event Overlapping: 1400s with 1600s
I suspect that most of the events that took place in 1400s and in 1600s happened during the span of the same 100 years. The best worded argument supporting this notion will obviously be this article:
  • X-185 Chronology: Another mental map for the discovery of America
  • The official year 1520 corresponds to the year 1705 real, and coincides with four capital episodes:
    • 1) with the previous stage to the fall of the headquarters of Rhodes of the Order of Saint John, heir of the Order of the Temple of Solomon:
    • 2) with the beginning of the European fight for the control of Italy, Rome and the Crown of the Spanish; 3) with the taking of possession of Mexico, by Cortés (which would be the Count of Ribagorça and Cortés, imperial blood from Constantinople, from Laskaris Comnenus family, leaders from the Constantinian Order of Saint George); and
    • 4) with the beginning of the so-called Christian Schism of the West, which began in 1520 (1705) with the work The captivity of Babylon, written by Martin Luther.
  • The official year 1540 corresponds to the year 1725, and it coincides with the founding of the Society of Jesus, which in a few decades directs the reconstruction of history with the collaboration of the main imperial headquarters of Europe, North Africa, Middle East, Persia, India, China, Japan and America. This production fills the history books with the imaginary of the 16th and 17th centuries, all of them books published from then on but with dates sent to the past.
  • In 1725 the Treaty of Vienna is agreed, which ends decades of struggles throughout Europe. The agreements become a global pact that legitimizes the distribution of half the world between the recently recreated European states. The Society of Jesus was created then, not before, and its main business was to spread the Messianic Bible and reconstruct history by reconciling all the calendars of the world.
Personally, I do not think one can quantify the exact number of years during the overlapping - MIXED - period. I think the dates of various "one and the same" type of events were adjusted independently. These, probably, belong in there too.
  • Pompeii Destruction: 1482 and 1631 - 149 years apart.
    • In fake years we get 1631 - 482 = 1,149 years
      • 1,149 years is close to 1,152 (the Birth of Jesus per Fomenko)
    • This event was very popular. It has two additional dates - 79 AD and in 472 AD.
  • Columbus vs Peter the Great: 1492 and 1700 - 208 years apart.
Additionally, if "i, I, j, J" do signify an extra 1,000 of years, but Jesus was indeed born in 1,152 AD...
  • Wouldn't we get "+152 years" to the time line?
And then, we possibly have these 222 years over 1,000 to consider.
  • I am not sure whether these speculative calculations are somehow related to the X-185 issue. Unfortunately, I do not have enough biblical knowledge to dismiss these 222 years. I am not a Biblical scholar and calculation pertaining to Gentile Months are beyond my abilities.
  • The Gentile Times Reconsidered


I created a possible timeline, but then realized that it was off, and I do not mean the spacing between events. Because of this X-185 factor, we do not really know what happened when. When 1540=1725, 1482=1631 and 1491=1699, it's virtually impossible to place most of the 15-17th century events on the time line. I will publish it purely because of the 869 years of somewhat known history we have.
  • I was gonna create another timeline with the Birth of Jesus at Year Zero, but that's where the above donned on me.

Queen Christina
Christina, a member of the House of Vasa, was Queen of Sweden from 1632 until her abdication in 1654. Christina abdicated her throne on 6 June 1654 in favor of her cousin Charles Gustav.
1626 – 1689

Why do we have some Queen of Sweden included in this article? Here is why:
    • The painting represents the Carousel organized in Palazzo Barberini in honor of the Queen Christina from Sweden, who had come to Rome in 1655 after her conversion into Catholicism and the renunciation at the crown.
    • The event is described with extraordinary attention to detail, giving each of the many characters a surprising individuality.
It is important to remember that it was an actual event "described with extraordinary attention to detail" by Filippo Gagliardi and Filippo Lauri.
  • This is not some made up event. We are being told that it actually happened.
  • Are "those" real, or dressed up/artificial?
    • I am not quite sure what the meaning of "Carousel' was in 1656.
Question #1: Who could this be?
  • Version #1: Christ
  • Version #2: Antichrist
  • Verion #3: Role playing

On the above image we clearly have the the ancient Roman god Janus. He is the god of beginnings, gates, transitions, time, duality, doorways, passages, frames, and endings.
What beginnings, transitions and endings did we have in 1656 AD, and what kind of accurate depiction of a real event is this?
  • Check this dragon looking thing out? Did they have the real thing out there?

The above event was dated with 1656. What could be the uncorrupted date of this event (with the birth of Jesus serving as a count off starting point)?
  • 1656 = i656 = 656 AD?
  • 1656 - 1152 = 504 AD?
  • i656 - 185 = 471 AD?
  • i656 - 208 = 448 AD?
QUESTION: We didn't miss out on the Millennial Kingdom, didn't we?

KD: I'm back to square one as far as our chronology goes. What year is it today? Anyways, I'm done. Please feel free to contribute.
The line to which you refer obliquely is from Revelation 20:
  • 7: And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
  • 8: And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
It goes without saying, there has been a whole lot of deception going on.
Last edited:
I wonder what happens should this god and his/her minions go down (or find their way to Siberia)? Looking at the data presented by KD and others, one can only conclude the lies are so ubiquitous and entrenched. A percentage of the populace will surely expire from sheer confusion.
The purpose of the fraud is the most interesting thing obviously. We can come up with 3 or 4 plausibly sounding speculations, but all our answers are in the true purpose.

I know that it’s stating the obvious, but with all the details we uncover, that’s one if the two things we are after. The other one is the actual unaltered history.
but all our answers are in the true purpose.
Meaning, we're searching for truth?

I've been going deep into Gnosticism; the texts from Nag Hammadi point to the Archons and the Demiurge-- also known as the god of those who call the pagans and everyone else Gentiles (see above in the stunning original post). Two problems with the scholarly Gnostics: cosmology and, well, history. If so, why do I take any of these thinkers seriously? It seems the Book of Revelation is both a playbook and predictive programming. The Gnostics provide a critique, a counter-narrative, and descriptions of how destruction has gone down previously. Mind control and self-induced obedience to a hidden, jealous god-- we all see it plainly. Supposedly 2000 years ago, they specified that these gods and controllers are aliens.

They maintain the spark of the divine is our individual intelligence and that we are all capable of knowing. Even if we know we don't know precisely what has happened, at least we know that much; and this knowledge changes our relationship to everything.

An upshot: the uncorrupted crime detective is a person of the highest virtue.
Last edited:
The shift of the American continent is a pretty wild concept, but I wouldn't be surprised.
I'm not very familiar with Fomenko theory on Jesus birthdate .. How did he calculate this 1,152 ?
I tend to think that the old testament is really describing events before Jesus birth, in a messy and dumbed down way, but still.
We would have something like 6000 years of wars between Angels, humans and hybrids ... cataclysms. The old world is probably beyond our current comprehension capacities.

Anyway, thanks for sharing your research KD, I am always impressed.
I'm not very familiar with Fomenko theory on Jesus birthdate .. How did he calculate this 1,152 ?
Basically the same way he does everything else, by cataloging duplicate persons and events and further correlating historical descriptions with known celestial events. Wiki has quick recap:
[Fomenko] associates initially the Star of Bethlehem with the AD 1140 (±20) supernova (now Crab Nebula) and the Crucifixion Eclipse with the total solar eclipse of May 1, AD 1185. He also believes that Crab Nebula supernova could not have been seen in AD 1054, but probably in AD 1153. He doubts the veracity of ancient Chinese astronomical data.
If I recall correctly, he believes that there's no other combination of two celestial events spaced 33 years apart that could accurately describe the Biblical events (Star of Bethlehem and Crucifixion eclipse). He discusses options cited by other researchers trying to place the events in the 1st millennium, but finds faults with the eclipse not being total or visible from the alleged locations (which Fomenko places in Italy, not the Middle East).
May be @Cemen could help out with images of pre-1700s coins and/or documents.
A very voluminous and complex topic, many of us are trying to figure it out, a lot of opinions and hypotheses, but there is no definite conclusion. More precisely, the conclusion is that there is something wrong with the chronology.

As for the coins, the pre-Peter's money has no date.
The only exception is the ruble of Alexei Mikhailovich in 1654.


In general, we have a complete mess with coins, at first they minted normal coins in the Kiev principality, then for some reason they switch to hryvnia (silver bars), then they start making clumsy coins. Also, Greek, Byzantine, Arab money, coined thalers are in circulation (in different epochs).

Handwritten sources are even more complicated. Dates are used with or without the number 7. Many documents are so-called "lists" (copies), and often copies from copies. At the same time, the dates are already according to the Julian calendar, but upon closer examination, the number 1 at the beginning of the date looks foreign and added later, and often does not look like the number 1 at all.
Unfortunately, the books are opened only in the Russian version of the site. Электронная библиотека рукописей. Российская национальная библиотека
And I completely agree with the post. I have long been entrenched in the opinion that there was no thousand-year history of mankind. Or the thousand-year history of OUR civilization.
Last edited:
How did he calculate this 1,152 ?
An answer to this question would require a separate article. Start with what @Banta said. As far as the entire Fomenko theory goes, I think we have a decent starter article here:
Additionally, you could watch this video, but you'd have to read the subtitles. Personally, I lack any reasons to question the date of 1052 AD (well, may be the one I will mention below). I am also not aware of any scientist capable of spotting any mistakes in Fomenko's calculations.

As far as the speed and possibility of swinging Hyperborea into the "Americas" position goes... it only depends on the level of divine technology. If the God (imho, the SkyLab), could create the entire planet Earth, bringing North and South Americas to where they are today in a timely manner would not be that hard.

This rabbit hole goes deep. To be honest, there are moments when I think that my mind goes insane. To pull something like what they did off (at least it appears that they did) requires some major global coordination and effort.

I've been toying with this Slavic/Russian counting system. We could have an answer to the riddle. It appears that our answers are within the zodiac circle, as well as within the point of origin from where we count off our proverbial years.
  • The sky is indeed a big ass clock. When I look in the night sky, I see a bunch of sporadically spaced blue dots and that's it.
  • Naturally, I have no idea how them ancient could build this system, but they did. To me, this suggests that we have no idea of their technology.
Note: I've spent so much time in Google Translate, I could probably claim an imminent domain by now. I even went as far as installing the Russian font on my PC.
The symbol of "҂".
- Slavic horoscope of animals -
Unity of man and nature, cycle of 16 years. By the calendar of the ancient Slavs year began on the day of the vernal (spring) equinox. Therefore Slavic animal horoscope begins on March 21.

As you can see above, our double cross symbol "҂" is present on the old Russian horoscope.
Now, I've been suspecting for a long time that our Jesus was an event, and not a person. Methinks, what we are seeing on the image above is the birth (or the death) of our Christ.

Who knows? May be this is where we got the entire cross thing.


December vs. March
We all know that the generally accepted (and substantiated by something we cannot really verify) date of the birth of our beloved Jesus Christ is:
  • December 25th
Well, the above date is clearly the case for the vast majority today. But...
If we go back to the OP, it was mentioned that in the year 7208 aka ҂ЗСИ from "The Creation of the World in the Star Temple", Peter the great decided to turn 7208 into 1700 AD.
  • Mara is the Earth or Matter, with all its various forces and types, therefore the earth in our folk writings is called the land of Mary.
  • Mara
  • Earth = Земля (in russian) > from here we get ҂З(емля)
  • ҂ - Slavic zodiac sign.
    • ҂ Zodiac epoch over Earth (with sky being a clock and a calendar)
    • Лиса aka "Fox" aka "Mara over Earth"
Once again, Earth = Russian "Земля".
  • From here we get ҂З, where ҂ means #10 horoscope/zodiac clock "Fox" (Лиса) being over some specific point over the Earth.​



In my opinion, this is exactly what we are witnessing on the coin shared by @Cemen. This ҂З does not mean 7000, but signifies a zodiac Era or Epoch..


҂З = ҂З(емля)

Just like I mentioned before, our Zodiac Circle is a huge clock overlaid over Earth. I have hard time figuring out this Russian Zodiac Circle.
  • They have 16 segments.
  • Does each segment last for 16 years? If it does...
  • The full circle would amount to 256 years.
    • 208 / 16 = 13 (thirteen of what?)
If there is some weird Zodiac sign looking like the one I drew below, it could be our "҂З".


Resembles a double-crossed Aries sign...


@Cemen, I think I found another interesting coin. It is dated with 7160 aka 1652 AD but it does not have this weird symbol meaning 7000 (҂3). The website suggests that it is implied.

Here is what we have:
  • РѮ = 160
  • Source: Anno Mundi date PЗ = [7]160/AD 1652

There are quite a few old Russian coins on this site. It appears that most of them fall into the "Novodel" category, as this word is mentioned in the description. I googled the word, and this here a bit of info:
  • Novodel's production of the Imperial period coins by the Mint at St. Petersburg stopped in the last quarter of the 19th century.
  • Novodels are supposed to be official "restrikes" by the mint, not some crazy fantasy or counterfeit coins.
  • Novodels are very collectible.
Now, check this out:

1700 Russian Coin

The conversion of the date for this one is a bit tricky :
  • -The year is written in cyrilic numerals "CH" with a tilde above (on the observe).
  • -The "H" shaped character should be read as a "И"
  • -The date uses the old calendar here, so we should read "҂ЗСИ" instead (the "҂З" never appears on those coins but is implied)
    • KD: ... applied, says what source?
  • "҂З" = 7000 ; С = 200 ; И = 8 . That means this coins was minted in 7208 in the ancient slavic calendar.
  • This calendar starts at 5508 BC (date of the "Creation of the World / Star Temple"), so we should retract 5508 to have the conversion in the Gregorian.
  • 7208 - 5508 = 1700.
  • Source
This is where it gets interesting, for it makes perfect sense, and gives us one additional thing to unscrew.
  • 5508 AM (Anno Mundi)- the year when the world was created by God.
    • ...aka 5508 BC
  • 7208 - from the Creation of the World in the Star Temple
Result: When we subtract 5508 from 7208 (7208-5508) we end up with 1700 AD. That is exactly the year Peter the Great had incorporated in ҂ЗСИ corresponding to 1700 AD and 7208 from the Creation of the World in the Star Temple.

Jesus died on a Cross
We have the Horoscope/Zodiac to deal with, and here's where things do get interesting. I don't think I'd be talking about this specific issue if it was not for this video.


For the geocentric model we would have something like this.


It is impossible for us to have the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn while we are in the Age of Pisces.
  • Era Aries (starts around 2160 BC to 0 AD) ...
  • Age of Pisces (beginning around 0 BC to 2160)
  • Source
As you can see, the age of Pisces started at the time when our Jesus was allegedly born. This is probably why we see these bumper stickers now and then.
jesus bumper sticker.jpg

But the issue with Aries turning into Pisces is hiding within the maps we have, and that includes the oldest of the oldest maps we have.
  • Tropics of Capricorn and Cancer are not possible after the age of Pisces.
    • Important: They are only possible during the age of Aries.
  • Only between 2160 BC and 0 AD could we have the tropics of Capricorn and Cancer.
No offence to anyone's intelligence, but here is why.
  • Under Aries, the limits of the sun travel are determined by the system in place.

Note: ho knows, may be this is the origin of the Maltese Cross.
  • I'm just speculating here.

Moving on...


The current tropics of Capricorn and Cancer were only possible during the age of Aries.
  • We need to remind ourselves that these are not just words.
  • These are the the so-called constellations above our heads.
    • These rotate and their rotation is calculable.
Ever since the birth of Jesus Christ (or 0 BC/0 AD) we live during the age of Pisces. And the above chart should look like this.


In other words, after the birth of Christ, tropics of Capricorn and Cancer should have been switched to:
  • Tropics of Sagittarius and Gemini
But, not only do we still have the outdated tropics names. We do not have a single current map.
  • As it stands they are outdated by 2021 years, and no matter what ma we look at reflects the pre-Jesus Christ state of things.
  • Here is a 1587 example. But every single map has the same tropics on it.

1587 Map


What now?
It appears we find ourselves in this majorly peculiar situation where the birth of Jesus Christ was supposed to correspond with the switch from the age of Aries to the age of Pisces. I admit, opinions on when astrological ages change differ, but what the internet sources say. And they say:
  • The approximate 2,160 years for each age corresponds to the average time it takes for the vernal equinox to move from one constellation of the zodiac into the next.
  • The age of Pisces began c. AD 1 and will end c. AD 2150
  • You’ve heard that we’re entering the Age of Aquarius, but that’s still some 150 years ahead.
  • We live in the Age of Pisces, and have done so for 2,000 years. It’s the age of religion, and its final stage is increasingly fanatic.
Basically, today we should have had the following tropics, but... we don't.
  • The question is obviously ... WHY?
  • The other question is way more important - how did we end up with the pre-Jesus tropics in first place?
  • Who mapped the pre-Jesus Earth pre?


Eventually we have the following stuff to figure out:
  • What is the true astrological age we currently live in?
    • Aries or Pisces?
    • KD: I have no idea what we have over head. Do you?
      • This is where we probably need some qualified assistance.
And this is where we get back to the zodiac maps. I'm gonna use the Slavic and the Traditional one.
  • Slavic has 16 segments
  • Traditional has 12 Segments
Every segment on our traditional horoscope equals 2,160 years.
  • Hence we get 12 x 2160 = 25,920 years for the full circle
As far as I understand, the size of the sky stays the same, regardless of whether we brake it into 12 segments, or 16.
  • Russian horoscope clock has 16 segments.
  • 25,920 / 16 = 1,620 years
Polar Shift vs. Horoscope Age Change
Just like I mentioned above, I'm incapable of figuring out what zodiac age we live in. I do not have enough knowledge to determine what relevant constellations we have above. It has to be one of the twelve zodiac signs, obviously. As it stands, I do not believe in any Polar Shifts, because I do not think that our Earth is a heliocentric based sphere.
  • But... I do entertain a possibility of some divine intervention into the zodiac cycle.
  • That means that I can imagine that using a far superior technology, the Age of Pisces could replace the Age of Aries in under 2,160 prescribed years.
    • Then again, are those really 2,160 years long?
It does appear that... West vs. Russia Jesus related horoscope signs do look similar. While...
  • The Russian one pertains to the month of March.
  • The traditional one pertains to the month of December.
  • But.. both have something to do with the position of the Sun over Earth.

Jesus vs. 4BC
I was not aware but... the date of birth of Jesus is not stated in the gospels or in any historical reference, but most theologians assume a year of birth between 6 and 4 BC.
Well, in this case, once the age of "҂" aka "Лиса" aka "Fox" done and over with, it could qualify as Jesus dying on a cross (either system), for the cross was done and over with.

To top it off, we have this "#1"... could it be our "i, I"?


KD: Ok, I'll take a breather and stop here for right now, but... there is more to say on this...
Okay, hopefully someone will come in and just make me look foolish, but I do have concerns about the premise here.
Though so many issues are contentious or disputed, there are two aspects of the astrological ages that have virtually unanimous consensus—firstly, the claimed link of the astrological ages to the axial precession of the Earth and commonly referred to as precession of the equinoxes; secondly, that, due to the nature of the precession of the equinoxes, the progression of the ages proceeds in reverse direction through the zodiacal signs
Axial precession:
Earth's precession was historically called the precession of the equinoxes, because the equinoxes moved westward along the ecliptic relative to the fixed stars, opposite to the yearly motion of the Sun along the ecliptic. Historically, the discovery of the precession of the equinoxes is usually attributed in the West to the 2nd-century-BC astronomer Hipparchus. With improvements in the ability to calculate the gravitational force between planets during the first half of the nineteenth century, it was recognized that the ecliptic itself moved slightly, which was named planetary precession, as early as 1863, while the dominant component was named lunisolar precession. Their combination was named general precession, instead of precession of the equinoxes....

...The precession of the Earth's axis has a number of observable effects. First, the positions of the south and north celestial poles appear to move in circles against the space-fixed backdrop of stars, completing one circuit in approximately 26,000 years. Thus, while today the star Polaris lies approximately at the north celestial pole, this will change over time, and other stars will become the "north star". In approximately 3,200 years, the star Gamma Cephei in the Cepheus constellation will succeed Polaris for this position. The south celestial pole currently lacks a bright star to mark its position, but over time precession also will cause bright stars to become south stars. As the celestial poles shift, there is a corresponding gradual shift in the apparent orientation of the whole star field, as viewed from a particular position on Earth
We should see one degree of movement every 72 years. Do we have any record of Polaris changing its position over time?

Maybe it doesn't need to. Rejecting the heliocentric model, perhaps the North Star can remain fixed and we would still see precession through the various signs:
So, roughly every 2,150 years, the sun’s location in front of the background stars – at the time of the March, or vernal, equinox – moves in front of a new zodiacal constellation
Do we actually see evidence of this? Do we have charts of the sun's position from even 100 years ago that show, when compared to today's observations, that it's position has changed?

And if we do, can we be sure the cycle is truly advancing and it isn't a sort of retrograde motion?
As seen from the Earth, the Sun, Moon, and planets all appear to move along the ecliptic. Unlike the Sun and Moon, however, the planets don't always make steady progress along the ecliptic. They usually move in the same direction as the Sun (i.e., eastward), but from time to time they seem to slow down, stop, and reverse direction (i.e., move westward). This apparent reversal is called retrograde motion.
Of course, we are to believe that the "planets" do not reverse course, it's an optical effect based on the alleged movement of the Earth. There's lots of celestial movement that the heliocentric model doesn't recognize (it can't and remain viable). How do we differentiate between actual position changes and supposed phenomena like stellar parallax?
Parallax is the observed apparent change in the position of an object resulting from a change in the position of the observer. Specifically, in the case of astronomy it refers to the apparent displacement of a nearby star as seen from an observer on Earth.
So, again, maybe this is all obvious and I'm missing something. But it seems to me that to detect the precession of the equinoxes and entering new zodiacal ages is dependent on very precise observations taken over an exceptionally long period of time. When you can go back a couple thousand years and cite ancient Greeks, it helps your case. However, when one is less sure of the veracity of any claims older than a hundred years or so, this all gets muddled pretty quickly, for me anyway.

Additionally, even if you were to chart consistent movement of stars relative to the Sun or Polaris relative to the north pole for even thousands of years, you are still just presuming a cycle (and presuming that celestial movement is incapable of change). That may sound as reasonable as the Sun rising in the East always, but at this point in my life, I take nothing for granted.
For me this entire zodiac calendar is like a voodoo magic. It only appears simple, but for it being a calculable system, too many conditionals would have to be on the same sheet of music.
  • Who and when determined and agreed upon the points of observation for all of them different zodiac circles?

On a separate note, if Fomenko was indeed correct with his calculations, we are royally screwed. These extra 152 years make life real interesting.
  • I played with the "discovery" of America date.

I'm not sure what that means, but noticed two (somewhat) corresponding dates of Pompeii destruction:
Wondering what else we have for 1644.

Why are they dating this coin with 1495?
  • In what numeral system the second symbol looking like "2" corresponds with "4"?

"4" below does not look like the one on the coin above, so it has to be some system not included below.

For me this entire zodiac calendar is like a voodoo magic. It only appears simple, but for it being a calculable system, too many conditionals would have to be on the same sheet of music.
Agreed. I think even with just raw data, figuring out the mechanics of the sky is a gigantic task but it's significantly more difficult because almost anything you read on the subject takes the heliocentric assumptions for granted (and have for centuries, so historical documents suffer from the same issues, unlike in other areas of investigation). Everything is very muddled (by design?).
Who and when determined and agreed upon the points of observation for all of them different zodiac circles
Right. Humanity seems to encode their stories in the stars (perhaps being inspired by them, a sort of feedback loop). But it's all very specific and most of what we study now has a very "western civilization" bias.

Our modern cosmology is far from empirical and is based on philosophy. And we take so much for granted. For instance, consider precession just from an observational standpoint. We notice this supposed movement because "the sun’s location in front of the background stars – at the time of the March, or vernal, equinox – moves in front of a new zodiacal constellation." The equinox being, of course, when there are equal hours of day and night at the equator. But the equinoxes themselves "change" when viewed against our model of time (months, years, centuries, etc).
The dates of the equinoxes change progressively during the leap-year cycle, because the Gregorian calendar year is not commensurate with the period of the Earth's revolution about the Sun. It is only after a complete Gregorian leap-year cycle of 400 years that the seasons commence at approximately the same time.
So we use something that isn't static as a reference for another system that is dynamic. Seems like we're missing something by even trying to describe this in "years."

I feel we need to take this back to absolute basics to start to get anywhere. So my question is, do we have recorded, verifiable historical observational data that on the actual spring equinox (meaning exactly when the daylight is 12 hours at the equator, not the rough calculation we generally go by) that the Sun has been, very slowly, appearing in slightly different positions relative to the background stars?

As usual, we're on our own, I suspect. Any expert in these fields takes all of this completely for granted and would no doubt find my inquiries to be highly uneducated.
Wondering what else we have for 1644.
I assume this is rhetorical. But this was one of the most important dates of that place we call China.

Huge war. Manchu/Tartars fighting the Ming/Chinese fighting the European naval powers/corporations on land and sea. Apparently, the Manchus prevailed and established the Qing dynasty. The Jesuits moved in and established the new calendar.
  • Equally, could it be that those with authority did know the true meaning of "i,I,j,J" but chose to adjust our history by adding an extra millennium to the time line?
  • Under what circumstances could either one happen without masses (of people) noticing?
Maybe they knew precisely the meaning? And simply wanted to attach the year of their god to maintain a semblance of continuity? (Who turned up at the 1189 coronation of King Richard?) As for people not noticing, we have ample evidence of how this is realized-- of course-- from our current situation.
What about this here?
1644 roughly equivalent to 2021, a year of decision; assume heavy casualties.
Who in the sane state of mind could dream up this sophisticated typeface to start a book printing business with, when progressing from hand-written texts? But...
One more fun fact, I recall reading (probably here or here) that Gutenberg turned his wine press into a printing press. What state of mind? Drunken printers...
Last edited:
I am new in here and I don't understand the astrological part in the discussion, but I can so far help you out with the (joust of) carrousel question: carrousel is an old military exercition, a movement that a horse makes with his front leg jumping up while his hind legs kicking backwards; it can be seen nowadays only at the Vienna school for Lippizaner horses because it takes 10 years of training.
The electric carrousel horse attractions are derived from this jumping motion.

BUT exept the perculiar dragon in the painting, I am more curious about the black people in this picture doing important things over there next to the dragon.
It does not fit the 1600's slavery narrative and what is their business in Rome anyway?
But if the timeline is indeed inaccurate these people might have been the Ethiopians - or better: the Christian/ Roman people of Aksum.
Aksum existed officially from 80 BC to 800 AD.
In ancient Rome they found some things that these people were known as Aethiopians: Aethiopia - Wikipedia

When I dig into that queen Christina carrousel I enter a lot of bogus, even historians are puzzled so they came up with this:
Giostra dei Caroselli - Wikipedia
It was a role playing "allegory" (but why? For some ugly swedish ex-queen that abandoned her country?)

There is a link in this article to a book "the REAL history of the Holy great queen Christina" written by Galeazzo Gualdo Priorato, who wrote more "the history of...." books in 1600's about the 1600's, and that book is not only one big word salad talking about the queen and his majesty (2 people?) on a big journey through Europe to Rome, but i find it perculiar that around 17th century historians are popping up, writing "the history of x" and X was only a few years ago and the writer died and then they found books.

Just like al these 17th century pencil draftsmen who draw everything exactly the same.
Romeyn de Hooghe, a Dutch one; he was worse than the paparazzi: he was literally everywhere.
They say he was the 17th century propagandist for the house of Nassau.
And every picture looks the same style too, drawn as if they put a Photoshop etching effect over a photo. There is a lot of ancient Roman/Greek gravy on his pictures too.

Another thing that I noticed in the America 1592 picture is that they talk of Dutch explorers who went to America but according to Wikipedia never went to America. ?

The stranger thing is; Columbus never went to north America, only South.
He and the "namegiver" Vespucci Amerigo thought that South America was a sort of pear, hanging with a string of land under the northpole or something, as you see in this picture:
Amerigo Vespucci (persoon) - Wikipedia

The whole continent north America is not there in the picture, but America is named after him anyway.

It is almost impossible to find out, who from 1500/ 1600's Europe thén set "first" foot on the continent of north America?

The Dutch Nicolaas Witsen (+/- 1660) speaks about the street of Anian (now Bering street) that was so closeby Asia that the people probably went to America ages ago.
Maybe they even walked to it and then the land tored apart.

You can throw an English translation on this:
Nicolaas Witsen, Noord en Oost Tartarye · dbnl

Either this guy is writing bogus or they just deleted / recreated parts of history.
The only thing is that this book is so unreadable (yes, bogus) due to his terrible language that nobody reads it actually.

In another part he talks about mammoth ivory found in the shallow ground of Siberia and one explanation is that the people there say that the earth flipped.
So that the cool (Sahara?) became hot and the warm (Siberia) became cold and the mammoths died.

Ok, tectonian plates ripping apart, the poles flipping, that sounds like a hell of a knowledge for people who knew nothing in 1660 and these events took place millions (?) years ago.

Another perculiar thing in his book is that he leans on descriprions of places that he calls "the old writers wrote about this like...."

Why should you write a new book with descriprions of really, really old, I mean like 1500 year old, writers in it?
As if nothing happend for 12-15 centuries and then suddenly people started "discovering" things.
Check this out:


MDCCLXXVI = 1776. Now what if... they simply doubled the amount of real years?


This would make for the following calculation:
( Current Year minus 1776 plus 888 is 1133 ) We are in the year 1133. Pretty damn close to the 1152 Anatoly Fomenko came up with, but a lot simpler to calculate.
Going from i888 to 1776 also allows to more easily blend (manipulate) together 112 years, from 1776 to 1888.

For me, this theory has 3 universal laws going for it:
  • The truth is often inverted (888 > doubled)
  • The truth often hides in plain sight (It is literally seen by millions of people every day, on the dollar bill)
  • The truth is simple (Everyone can understand this calculation)
Very interesting...

What marks year zero, the Christ event? (Not fluent in Fomenko, am I).

Can you expand your thoughts a bit here?
Fugio (I escape in Latin)
Mind your own busines😳
In another topic I translated a letter written from the Russian king to the Dutch
Where he basically said: that the first ruler of Russia (Ryurk) was a direct descendant of Emperor Augustus.
The Ryurk are supposed to be Vikings. They found "evidence" in different Iceland saga's.
If the Vikings were not the Vikings we think they were, but actually highly skilled Roman Emperors, then indeed a Viking/ .... Leif Eriksson was the "first" to set foot in north America around 1000 aD
Off course they recently 'found' evidence for Vikings tot confirm this story.
They had to dig it out and replicate it "as it was in that era", but it looks like what we may expect from Vikings
👉 vi- king .... Forced king.
Very interesting...

What marks year zero, the Christ event? (Not fluent in Fomenko, am I).

Can you expand your thoughts a bit here?
For me, yes.
Some big event took place and they started counting and they wrote books about it so this is like the goalpost in history.
Most history books speak of "the year of Holy ieso Christus ...."

If you want to "fraude" you have to fraud the mainstream narrative, not come up with too much new.
You have to change the goalpost, not totally remove it.
The truth often hides in plain sight (It is literally seen by millions of people every day, on the dollar bill)
Most of them people are blatant narcissist and megalomaniac.
I'd go for this.
Last edited:

Similar articles