Book | The New Chronology by Fomenko and Nosovskiy

For some, the New Chronology requires no introduction, at the same time there are way more people who have never heard about it. Sometimes I wonder whether we would even be talking about the lost, or stolen history without the effort put in by Mr. Fomenko and Mr. Nosovsky. I hope this little article influences at least one person to consider reading The New Chronology series, for, once you do, you cannot go back to the official narrative without questioning everything you see. At least it appears that way.

Cover_of_History-Fiction_or_Science__Chronology.jpg


The New Chronology
A.T.Fomenko, G.V.Nosovskiy
Created in the XVI century A.D. and accepted today chronology and history of the ancient and medieval world, evidently contains big mistakes. Many outstanding scientists understood it and discussed during a long period of time. But it appeared to be a difficult task to build a new, non-contradictory concept of chronology.
Starting from 1975 a group of mathematicians, mainly from the Moscow State University, were engaged in the development of this problem. Interesting results were received and published both in scientific periodical print and in separate monographs. We underline, that new concept of chronology is based, mainly, on analysis of historical sources WITH THE METHODS OF MODERN MATHEMATICAL STATISTICS and vast COMPUTER CALCULATIONS.
  • The task of chronology is to put in order the events into proper way on a temporary scale based on the available information. This task naturally fits into the field of applications to modern mathematical statistics, theory of information. The methods of humanities, one of which is history, are not enough for solving chronological issues. New chronology imposes another psychological picture of perception of the antiquity. Now the word "antiquity" should be connected with XV-XVII centuries A.D. that is with the events, distant from us on 300-400 years. Expression "high antiquity" should now relate to the XIII-XIV centuries A.D. And the words "the highest antiquity" – are already the XI-XII centuries A. D. BEFORE THE X-XI CENTURIES A.D. THE EPOCH OF SILENCE OF WRITTEN DOCUMENTS COMES. (See the book RECONSTRUCTION).
  • Our analyses of the chronology and history opened a striking circumstance. Based on the applied by us mathematical methods it was proved, that the Scaligerian chronology, and therefore also the Scaligerian history of the "antiquity" and the Middle Ages, is totally wrong. Moreover, it appeared that our history right up to the end of the XVI century was consciously falsified at the epoch of the XVII-XVIII centuries.
The New Chronology
Wiki - pseudohistorical theory
Wikipedia tells us, "The New Chronology is a pseudohistorical theory which argues that the conventional chronology of Middle Eastern and European history is fundamentally flawed, and that events attributed to the civilizations of the Roman Empire, Ancient Greece and Ancient Egypt actually occurred during the Middle Ages, more than a thousand years later. The central concepts of the New Chronology are derived from the ideas of Russian scholar Nikolai Morozov (1854–1946), although work by French scholar Jean Hardouin (1646–1729) can be viewed as an earlier predecessor. However, the New Chronology is most commonly associated with Russian mathematician Anatoly Fomenko (born 1945), although published works on the subject are actually a collaboration between Fomenko and several other mathematicians.
  • The New Chronology also contains a reconstruction, an alternative chronology, radically shorter than the standard historical timeline, because all ancient history is "folded" onto the Middle Ages. According to Fomenko's claims, the written history of humankind goes only as far back as AD 800, there is almost no information about events between AD 800–1000, and most known historical events took place in AD 1000–1500.
  • The New Chronology is rejected by mainstream historians and is inconsistent with absolute and relative dating techniques used in the wider scholarly community. The majority of scientific commentators consider The New Chronology to be pseudoscientific. Interest in the academia in the theory stems mainly from its popularity which has compelled historians and other scientists to argue against its methods and proposed world history. A second point of interest from the mainstream academic community is to understand why it has become so popular as to perhaps have the sympathy of 30 percent of Russians. It is not really known to which extent readers of New Chronology texts regard it as history or fiction. Nor are there reliable statistics on who the readers are."
Anatoly Fomenko
fomenko_1.jpg

Born in 1945, academician of Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS), actual member of RANS (Russian Academy of Natural Sciences), actual member of IAS of HS (International Academy of Science of Higher School), actual member of ATS RF (Academy of Technological Sciences of Russian Federation), doctor of physical-mathematical sciences, professor, the head of the department of differential geometry and applications of the Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics of the Moscow State Lomonosov University. He solved a well-known Plateau problem in the theory of spectral minimal surfaces, created a theory of thin classification of integrable Hamiltonian dynamical systems. Award winner of the State Prize of Russian Federation of 1996 (in the field of mathematics) for a series of works on the theory of invariants of the manifolds and Hamiltonian dynamical systems. The author of 250 scientific works, 24 monographs and text books, specialist in the field of geometry and topology, calculus of variations, theory of minimal surfaces, symplectic topology, Hamiltonian geometry and mechanics, computer geometry.
The author of several books on development and application of new empirical-statistical methods for the analysis of historical chronicles, chronology of the ancient time and Middle Ages.

Gleb Nosovsky
gleb-nosovskii.jpg

Born in1958, candidate of physical-mathematical sciences (MSU, 1988), specialist in probability theory, mathematical statistics, theory of stochastic processes, optimization theory, stochastic differential equations, computer modeling of stochastic processes. He worked in the Space Research institute (Moscow), in Moscow MOSSTANKIN institute, and also in Japan, within a scientific cooperation between the MSU and University of Aizu in the field of computer geometry. At the moment he works as Associate Professor at Mech-Math Faculty of the MSU at the Chair of Differential Geometry and Applications.

The Books
Volume 1: Introducing the problem. A criticism of the Scaligerian chronology. Dating methods as offered by mathematical statistics. Eclipses and zodiacs.
Volume 2: The dynastic parallelism method. Rome. Troy. Greece. The Bible. Chronological shifts.
Volume 3: Astronomical methods as applied to chronology. Ptolemy's Almagest. Tycho Brahe. Copernicus. The Egyptian zodiacs.
Volume 4: Russia. Britain. Byzantium. Rome.
Volume 5: Russia = Horde. Ottomans = Atamans. Europe. China. Japan. The Etruscans. Egypt. Scandinavia.
Empire
Volume 6: (no translation) The Horde-Ataman Empire. The Bible. The Reformation. America. Passover and the calendar.
Volume 7: (no translation) A reconstruction of global history. The Khans of Novgorod = The Habsburgs. Miscellaneous information. The legacy of the Great Empire in the history and culture of Eurasia and America.

Other books:
Empirico-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Material and its Applications to Historical Dating

Global Chronological Map:

anatoly-fomenko.jpg
Various sources:
 
I recently became aware of another book by Anatoly and Tatiana Fomenko, Wieslaw Krawcewicz, and Gleb Nosovskiy.

zodiacs.jpg

It's called ZODIACS: Timeline Of Egypt Cut In Stone.

It's a fascinating and exhaustively researched book as is typical of Fomenko.

Ironically I found this book while looking for a high quality copy of History: Fiction or Science in PDF form.

If you go on Library Genesis and search for Anatoly Fomenko Fiction or Science, there are 4 results. One of them is 343 MB. That file is not History: Fiction or Science. It is actually ZODIACS: Timeline Of Egypt Cut In Stone. If you use link [1], the copy at the subsequent IPFS link downloaded for me quite rapidly here in the US.
 
Just wanted to say, if you're on this site, this should be required reading. At least required skimming, they get pretty dense and mathematical modeling like this has obvious limitations. But the correlations are fascinating and one should easily be able to walk away understanding that our current chronology definitely has duplicate events/people or we're stuck in some sort of matrix-type loop. I think it's a little of both, leaning harder on the former.
 
So not that Fomenko was the first or only narrative questioner, but I like to see that there are more kindred spirits out there. Stumbled across this group today and thought it would be interesting to add. And I guess here is a good place! (Maybe.)
The Doubting Antiquity School or Yigupai refers to a group of scholars and writers in Chinese academia, starting during the New Culture Movement (mid-1910s to 1920s), who applied a critical historiographical approach to Chinese historical sources. They put forward theories doubting the authenticity of texts and narratives that, in traditional Chinese historiography, were often accepted as authentic...

...The central tenet of their approach was that the history of Chinese antiquity was created iteratively. Ancient texts have been repeatedly edited, reorganised, tampered with or even completely fabricated, so the historical narrative of antiquity as presented in traditional texts was different at different points of time. As time went on, the history of antiquity became longer and more complicated, characters acquired more features, including more supernatural attributes. This means that it is not always possible to identify the "authentic" version of events from antiquity, only the narrative as stated in a text at a particular time.
A very reasonable approach, if you ask me...
 
How excellent. Thank you. I had downloaded all these books years ago, and forgot about them. Thanks to one of my notebooks which I opened this morning to the list of books and descriptions of each of the "History: Fiction or Science" by Anatoly T. Fomenko, and then coming here on this site and seeing this, and that, how wonderful, there is an online audio of the books, I decided to open the first book and start reading. I think I'll pull out my "Forbidden Archeology" book by Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson, for comparisons to move back and forth. It makes reading much more pleasurable when there are two or three books open. Helps also to get a wider view.

I think I should add, at this point,
the entire falsification of Humanity's history involves a further aspect that has not been 'allowed' for us to see. It is the fallen entity (fallen angelics') aliens' workings THROUGH Human beings, that has pushed this along. I have been looking for the truth of my and of our origins all my life, and thankfully I finally came across the book "Eternal Humans and the Finite gods" (3rd edition) by Theresa Talea, (you'll have to open in new page otherwise you're taken off this blog and have to go back) about 2 years ago. The difficulty in describing a whole prevents me from showing what it is I'm seeing after having read it all, and many other books and seen things, experienced things. But, I'll try to describe in a short paragraph that the culprit has always been a so-called 'priest.' The alien/extraterrestrials who started a long time ago in creation, had a fall of some of them, who then became the enemies of the universe. They especially became the enemy of Man, of Humanity, because they lack what we still have, and they either want it for themselves or to just utterly destroy Humanity as we know it. They only "use" others for their agenda. That's why you hear that the devil likes to hide, deceive beings from knowing they exist, and that when you find their 'name' then you've pulled them out of hiding and have power over them. Similar, same thing, with those fallen alien extraterrestrial entities. After they attacked the Earth a few times in our ancient past, Atlantean times specifically, they put down their death science technology into the Earth, in and on Ley Lines, important areas, one of their technologies being known as the Anunnaki NET system (Nibiruian Electrostatic Transduction fields) which instantly mind wiped all the people on the planet, made a "disconnect" in them of their Higher and Lower self, and through that amnesia, the fallen were now able to manipulate the population by telling them that they are their gods, and further manipulating their DNA and creating inferior races of people that they use as their illuminati puppets. The main ones are told things like visit them at the equinoxes and solstices, because that is when they are able to come through their wormholes and manifest here, which they use to force new breeds of children into this planet that they can control and do their manipulative work with. Most of these beings are easily controlled through possession, not the type of possession you were taught about in the roman catholic religion, that is just drama. These beings take over bodies and live the life through the original person's life, while they are shoved in the back on hold, and when they have finished their nefarious business here, they leave the body, their factions come and pick them up, usually at the Egyptian pyramid, and the person is now transported away from where they lived, so that they could live out their life somewhere else (which they don't remember any of it because they were in stasis state in their own body while possessed) where no one will be able to figure out what happened, since they are two different beings, one the person who owns the body, the other, the possessing entity.

That is just a small amount of information to allow you to see how we have been manipulated, and this has continued for a long time.
 
Last edited:
Dionysius Exiguus, founder of the Anno Domini chronology
My issue with Dionysius Exiguus is that to me it seems almost certain that he and Dionysius Petavius (that other chronologer) were the same person.

1702427824140.jpg
If it is true that Dionysius Petavius was the first to publish Dionysius Exiguus' works, in his own work setting down what the "true chronology" was.. I feel like it's a safe assumption, considering the other "Renaissance" shenanigans that have become known. (Albeit more research and scrutinizing is desired).

Their names have an eerie "coincidence" as well:

Apparently Dionysius Exiguus is also referred to as "Dennis the Small" (some places say that's what Exiguus means, though Wikipedia says it means "humble")...

1702428243295.jpg

... and Dionysius Petavius is also known as De[n]nis, Denis Pétau.

1702428424037.jpg

I tried to find etymology of Pétau to no avail, though my search engine kept trying to suggest definitions for "petite"..


I think the biggest point I want to make moreso than the name connections, and a major question I have now is:
How much of Dionysius Exiguus works' were known before Dionysius Petavius started publishing them?

1702428795099.jpg
Also another fun little detail I noticed was a "J.G. Janus" republishing them after Dionysius published them first. Roman bros/gods Dionysus and Janus helping each other out? 😅
 
Last edited:
I don't know if they were one and the same. There's multiple extremely weird things to solve when you go into the specifics.

In any case I asked ChatGPT who published Dionysius Exiguus's Easter table for the first time (it calls them "Dionysian tables") and it says it was Kepler who did it in 1606 in his "Eclogae Chronicae".
We know that Fomenko points to Kepler as the guy who retrodated basically all that was of interest to Scaliger (and caught by Fomenko red-handed because of that astronomical thing that Kepler couldn't foresee due to the level of astronomical advancement of his era... and now I can't remember what it was exactly... but hey! I'm excused since I'm not an astronomer!).
Which brings the question (if ChatGPT is right) how could Kepler publish Dionysius Exiguus if his double Dionysius Petavius came after Kepler?
 
@awarewolf, this is pretty fascinating. According to this, there are two existing manuscripts attributed to DE.

Tracking down when either was mentioned for the first time could probably assist with establishing some sort of a time frame.
 
One thing to say is that in 525 AD Dionysius supposedly found out (with an error of three years if I remember correctly) that the astronomical conditions present during Christ's birth were going to repeat themselves in the year 532 AD.

So if we take in consideration Jesus' birth according to Fomenko we have to add 532 years.

The original date given was 1052 subsequently corrected to 1152. Therefore we possibly have 1584 AD or 1684 AD, considering that we probably have to take away those years I mentioned due to the error.

In my opinion the best date for Jesus' birth is 1052. I truly believe that Fomenko pushed it forward to make coincde Western European history with the Tartar Empire.

My reasoning for 1584 AD minus few years for the best date comes from an old thread by KD, of which I give the link for another forum because I don't know if there's one here. I think that despite the mistake in finding out the proper dates, the main point was correct:
I'm gonna copy/paste here my reasoning I posted on that same forum:

As stated on Wikipedia (Gregorian calendar - Wikipedia), the Gregorian calendar shortened the average calendar year by 0,0075 days, compared to the Julian Calendar. The Church chose to skip 10 days: from 4 October 1582 they switched to 15 October 1582. But why 10 days and not 15, or 5?
If we consider the difference in years between 45 BC (date on which the Julian Calendar went into effect) and 1582 AD, we have 1627 years. If we do 1627 years * 0,0075 days, we obtain 12,2025 days. And if we consider the date of 325 AD (Council of Nicea) as the beginning of the Julian Calendar, as it was apparently considered, we have 1257 years * 0,0075 days, which is 9,4275 days.
The second one is definitely more precise, but what about the exact years needed to obtain a precise 10 days lapse?
1333 years * 0,0075 days equals 9,9975 days;
1334 years * 0,0075 days equals 10,005 days.
If we subtract 1334 years from the date in which the Gregorian Calendar became effective (1582 AD), we have the date 248 AD. What happened in this year? Rome celebrated 1000 years! Just a coincidence?
By the way, this 248 is just one year off the mark. If we consider a subtraction of 1335 years from year 1582 AD, we obtain year 247 AD, and anyway it is possible to shift to the year 247 through the counting of months.


If this is correct the Dionysius Exiguus we are talking about was possibly the main character behind the Gregorian calendar reform of 1582 AD.
Here my original thread:
 
I don't know if they were one and the same. There's multiple extremely weird things to solve when you go into the specifics.

In any case I asked ChatGPT who published Dionysius Exiguus's Easter table for the first time (it calls them "Dionysian tables") and it says it was Kepler who did it in 1606 in his "Eclogae Chronicae".
We know that Fomenko points to Kepler as the guy who retrodated basically all that was of interest to Scaliger (and caught by Fomenko red-handed because of that astronomical thing that Kepler couldn't foresee due to the level of astronomical advancement of his era... and now I can't remember what it was exactly... but hey! I'm excused since I'm not an astronomer!).

ChatGPT loves to "hallucinate" (word used in AI space for this phenomenon) false information by combining sources, so that is something to watch out for when trying to use AI/chatbots to verify historical information. I pointed this out to another user on the other stolen history forum. If you are able to find Exiguus mentioned in Eclogae Chronicae, that is another story entirely, but definitely be careful when asking chatbots about history.

Here's what seems to be a decent copy of Eclogae Chronicae. Unfortunately, I cannot read it. 😅 I did, however, test the search function on the site, which seems to be working... but no results for Exiguus or Dionysius... Could be spelled differently or not tracked by the search engine, but I'm not sure, and skimming that Latin for mentions of the name is beyond me right now. Maybe someone else will have better luck, but I'm personally suspicious, and thinking that what you experienced was a common case of ChatGPT just making stuff up (which it does, a lot).

1702442033164.png


1702442059855.png


1702442092718.png


Which brings the question (if ChatGPT is right) how could Kepler publish Dionysius Exiguus if his double Dionysius Petavius came after Kepler?
If ChatGPT is right, and we are able to find Exiguus work within Kepler's, there is still the X-185 hypothesis:
1702444479698.jpg

The year 1486 might also be the year 1671.

I agree moreso with the opinion of I believe it was KorbenDallas in another thread, that it is likely not exactly 185 years used repeatedly; different events are probably spread out or put into different times as suited whoever was doing it.


@awarewolf, this is pretty fascinating. According to this, there are two existing manuscripts attributed to DE.

Tracking down when either was mentioned for the first time could probably assist with establishing some sort of a time frame.

Looks like there's a footnote on that page suggesting it was first printed in 1661. I haven't done a deeper dive yet though, as I'm all over the place right now.

1702442663547.jpg
 
Last edited:
ChatGPT is in fact now giving me many other possible sources. One of them contains at least Dionysius name. It's the "Romani calendarii a Gregorio XIII. P. M. restituti explicatio" by Christophorus Clavius.

Other supposed texts and authors are:
  • "Responsio ad disputationem de Paschate" by the same Christophorus Clavius
  • "Rationarium Paschale" by Pietro Pitati
I agree moreso with the opinion of I believe it was KorbenDallas in another thread, that it is likely not exactly 185 years used repeatedly; different events are probably spread out or put into different times as suited whoever was doing it.

Fomenko nonchalantly promoted Marful's content despite his 185 years mark has no mathematical basis whatsoever. Not only that but Marful is a Catalan independentist historian deeply involved in politics and therefore 100% biased. People who says Fomenko is biased because he teaches at the Moscow University have seen nothing (and should stop talking of things they totally ignore).

So if every kind of applied method is valid, even without any mathematical reasoning behind it as in Marful's case, then we have a problem, since everybody can make their own stuff up and then propose it as "the Truth". I wonder what kind of dialogue can form around baseless speculation. No?

That said I'm not saying it's not possible but if we establish Fomenko as an authority then we must try to follow certain rules otherwise it becomes something more similar to fan fiction, in my very very very humble opinion.
 
This is in reference to the mentioned 185 year shift.
As you guys know, I view Jesus Christ more like an event rather than a historical figure. As in… his 33 years of life were the years of some event duration. One of the possible explanations for 185 could be that it’s a sum of 152 (from 1152) and 33. This of course is predicated on the Christ being born in j152 or i152, interpreted as 1152. Of course if we go with 1052, the math does not work.
 
By the way, some years ago I compiled a scheme of dates based on Marful's shift with the data at disposal on his website. I leave it here if anybody is interested in using it.
 

Attachments

  • timeline.txt
    28.5 KB · Views: 94
That said I'm not saying it's not possible but if we establish Fomenko as an authority then we must try to follow certain rules otherwise it becomes something more similar to fan fiction, in my very very very humble opinion.
I added an edit about Fomenko, but I'm moving it to this separate post in reply here due to feeling it may have been missed:

I do want to also say I find myself disagreeing with Fomenko in that I think his chronology goes too far back and includes events that didn't happen (or that happened later). I'm way behind in terms of reading, and I find that my own research does agree with him a lot, but his use of this as a source concerns me...
A valuable source, which we used many times in our studies.
Now translated from Latin into Russian in St.Petersburg in 1720

Translation was made by bishop of Ryazan Gavril Buzhinskiy from the lost now original.
The PDF linked on the page seems broken, the archived copy from February says "failed to load" (edit: I found an older archive with a slightly different URL that let me access it!), and English search engines don't seem to know about it at all. If any of you are in contact with Fomenko, please ask him about this lol.

edit: Mostly what I'm concerned about is it being the same kind of situation with the Renaissance "findings" that are suspected forgeries.. A copy made from an original that was "lost", where we know little about its origins. The Russian wikipedia page on the translator seems to say about the same that Fomenko's site does (very little).
В 1720 году Гавриил стал префектом Славяно-греко-латинской академии. В том же году им был сделан перевод т.н. «Лютеранского хронографа», известного под названием «Феатрон или позор исторический...»[3]. В 1749 году книга была запрещена указом Елизаветы Петровны и изъята.
In 1720, Gabriel became the prefect of the Slavic-Greco-Latin Academy. In the same year he was given a translation of the so-called. « Lutheran chronograph », known as « Featron or historical shame ... »[3]. In 1749, the book was banned by decree Elizabeth Petrovna and seized.
I see no indication of who the original author of the "Latin version" is supposed to have been, and unfortunately I can't read Russian yet so I can't check the book easily to see if the translator ever mentions who they were translating.

And I noticed a lottt of pages come up showing where Fomenko relies on this book for his chronological theories.


By the way, some years ago I compiled a scheme of dates based on Marful's shift with the data at disposal on his website. I leave it here if anybody is interested in using it.
Very useful, thank you!! (saved a copy to my Chronology folder)


One last thing (after a bunch of new edits; sorry!!)
if we establish Fomenko as an authority then we must try to follow certain rules otherwise it becomes something more similar to fan fiction, in my very very very humble opinion.
Nobody is infallible; and establishing "Authorities" on things is, in my opinion, part of how we got in this mess in the first place. 😅

I think he's done a lot for the field of chronology research, but we shouldn't be afraid to question something if we feel it's off or seems to have logical gaps. It may cause more work (and more "unlearning") but I think it's important to be thorough.
 
Last edited:
Nobody is infallible; and establishing "Authorities" on things is, in my opinion, part of how we got in this mess in the first place. 😅

I think he's done a lot for the field of chronology research, but we shouldn't be afraid to question something if we feel it's off or seems to have logical gaps. It may cause more work (and more "unlearning") but I think it's important to be thorough.
Sorry if I may sound trivial, but I think you are projecting a bit there.

I didn't speak of "Authorities" with a capital A, nor I'm suggesting we should take one as such, but denying Fomenko as an authority in the field of chronology is somewhat disingenuous. So what I'm saying is that Fomenko was used as the basis... the authority... upon which make certain reasonings, despite the possible agreement or disagreement on various interpretations of his reconstruction and (in my case) the different evolvement of his own work through time. I insist on this point because defending the "authority", Fomenko in this case, is necessary in order to have a common background. It is important to do it in order to avoid the flooding of people who don't know anything about the subject of chronology and simply trash entire forums with unrelated topics based upon different and conflicting (and unknown) authorities, as I personally experienced "somewhere else".

In a nutshell: there's few forums dedicated to chronology, so what's the reason to putting doubts on the very "authority" upon which the forum itself is based? Wouldn't it be better for the critics of Fomenko to go posting in the other thousands of dedicated "normal" history forums? It is a matter of principle rather than considering Fomenko as God in the flesh. I hope I'm clear enough.

And when it comes to the field of chronology there's literally nobody aside Fomenko and Nosovsky, unless somebody wants to start talking about Morozov. Florin Diacu wrote a book about chronology but is nowhere near the level of detail you can find in Fomenko. So until somebody else will come with new mathematical "proofs" I fear we have to settle with what we have. And I'm not including other recentists I follow and that I very much like simply because strictly speaking they are not "chronologists", because they approach the matter from a purely historical point of view rather than an astronomical/mathematical one.
I do want to also say I find myself disagreeing with Fomenko in that I think his chronology goes too far back and includes events that didn't happen (or that happened later). I'm way behind in terms of reading, and I find that my own research does agree with him a lot, but his use of this as a source concerns me...

My guess is that they use that source from a purely mathematical/statistical point of view. I doubt they are concerned with the content, especially considering how according to Fomenko the Reformation was the process by which the Vatican, as expression of "the West" took over the Tartar Empire. From his point of view, without entering the details, there's not much difference between the Reformation and Counter-Reformation as explained by mainstream history... they are both "the West".

Therefore my guess is that he doesn't even bother to read the contents of that source since his work, by his own admission, is firstly that of chronologist and only secondly that of "historian", or person who reconstructs based on the raw data. I'm sure he doesn't consider that source to be reliable per se, but I'm happy to be contradicted if somebody knows more.
 
Last edited:
I do want to also say I find myself disagreeing with Fomenko in that I think his chronology goes too far back and includes events that didn't happen (or that happened later). I'm way behind in terms of reading, and I find that my own research does agree with him a lot, but his use of this as a source concerns me...
You're right his research goes back in time as far as the Egyptian timeline is concerned but the amount of work that he put into his research is colossal. I've always found a bit silly when someone like you says casually "my research aligns or not with Fomenko" or whomever other author. Why do people have the tendency to egoistically and deceptively show that their "research" is on par with Fomenko? Is it because they want to boost their ego and morale? What they mean most of the time with the miss used word "research" is that they have just read a tiny bit of chapters from a book or they just watched a couple of videos from Jon Levi.

I'm sorry to be this blunt but the truth is all I can offer, I'm just a bit tired of being lectured by people from whom I'd like very much to know their level of education and age first before they start telling me or anyone else how things are.

It took Fomenko, Novosky and his wife 6 years to just make a long horizontal graph of chronology in a rolled 1m height and probably more than a dozen meters long of a continuous piece of paper, where he exposed all of his research in one single expose drawn by hand with a ruler and pencil.
Do you still think that your research aligns with him on scope and method, or purpose? He did all that without the aid of a computer. Just watch the video below.


In a nutshell: there's few forums dedicated to chronology, so what's the reason to putting doubts on the very "authority" upon which the forum itself is based? Wouldn't it be better for the critics of Fomenko to go posting in the other thousands of dedicated "normal" history forums? It is a matter of principle rather than considering Fomenko as God in the flesh. I hope I'm clear enough.
My advice is that you're going to have to search for a real discussion about Fomenko's findings in Russian forums, all you have to do is discard the ones who talk about Tartaria or Mud Flood passionately, very few people are comfortable speaking about him in the west and certainly they're not here also. Of course, you'll have to use a lot of google translate. It's just the way it is.
 
Last edited:

Similar articles

Back
Top