Pardon me, but I have a few humble questions about Tartaria

SonofaBush

New member
Messages
18
Reactions
15
The ones who don’t carry any fasces I assume. The ones who need no military force to get protected, for they have others to protect them. For starters, I’d look at these 22 first, before anything else:
To me, only Monaco and Vatican stand out.

Then I would look at this wonderful, and always neutral Switzerland.
Some such as Panama and Iceland have small naval and maritime forces. Many of those countries are too small to pose a threat to anyone. I would think many countries would rush to the aid of the Vatican since many populations in Europe and South America would settle for no less and as for Monaco, I am surprised its alliance with France works, looks suspicious now that I think about it. There is a big Hoover or Dyson sucking sound when it comes to capital. Wonder why France has not at some point been lead by a hostile "rogue" administration let alone some other country.

Despite having a military, my bets are we are "protecting" Israel and Saudi Arabia. Personally, I think it is more complicated than that and that it is a complicated agenda / arrangement with many methods and objectives I have a hard time getting my head around. I do not buy "oil" and "only dumbocracy (not a misspelling) in the Middle East".
 
Last edited:
OP
mythstifieD

mythstifieD

Well-known member
Messages
218
Reactions
932
Evidence shows one global architectural style, which in turn suggests that there was one similar culture all over. Judging by architecture and street layouts alone, some 170 years ago we would not know which country we are in. Today, on the other hand, only very culturally similar countries share architecture. Which probably means that back in the day there was one school. Not geographically , but curriculum wise.
I watched an interesting video where the guy is trying to show that the Irish were actually the legendary Phoenicians and it's actually Irish architecture that's found around the world, not Roman. But... Fomenko does a pretty good job exposing UK history as yet another rather close reflection of Byzantine history.

fig-6[1].gif


The Issue with Great Britain

From this perspective any colonization later, could only be a consequence of the previous system being broken, a certain region becoming dominant, and other places unable to defend themselves.

I can only see Tartary in the above context, if they really advanced in their conquest as far as Europe, and possibly Americas.
This reflects closely to Fomenko's theory, although I feel like I haven't yet gotten to his fully fleshed "THIS IS HOW IT ALL FELL APART" explanation yet. Some of what he has mentioned though is that as Tartary expanded, and scandal unfolded in the empire (reflected to us today in the Biblical accounts of Judean Kings, and Roman Emperors, but in reality Byzantine Emperors alone) people started to engage in civil wars to break free and claim their independence. Fomenko states that the Ottomon's were sent to cleanse the west of the plague, and they did so by mass genocide. We know this as the Muslim Invasion of Europe after Mohamed died in the 600s, but in reality this happened in the 1400s. This got reflected in the Book of Revelation (yes, written AFTER the onslaught) when plagues and wars and rumours of wars were very much in recent memory. Some other battles happened, and eventually the Romanov's squeezed into power and Tartary fell apart.

Now of course, we in the west say "ahhh nice try, you're erasing western history and claiming everything happened in the East? That even Queen Elizabeth isn't what we think?" but aside from our xenophobic impulse, why not? What if?

Yet, personally, I do not consider Tartary being that World unifying order I mentioned in the first paragraph. They might have preceded the Roman Empire, but they were not that major civilization of the initial builders.
Preceded? I honestly have a very hard time shaking his proofs that the Roman Emperor didn't actually happen.

taula-02-2n01-en[1].jpgtaula-05-2n02-en[1].jpgtaula-10-1n06a-en[1].jpg

You may have seen these statistical graphs in his books, but for those who haven't, what Fomenko has shown here is that not only do the Kings and Queens seem similar to each other (the width of the graph -- ie. died of poison, married 3 women, ascended to the throne young, had co rulers, etc etc), but they also ruled almost exactly the same duration of time... IN SEQUENCE! That's statistically impossible unless we're looking at PLAGIARISM. This is what DID IT for me, I have a very very very hard time refuting this.

We're supposed to believe that Rome fell, everyone COMPLETELY FORGOT about it, until in the 1400's some guy started finding dusty manuscripts in dusty monasteries that dimwitted monks had no clue what they were, and managed to translate them an found out "HOLY MOLY! LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED IN ITALY 1000 YEARS AGO!" and then suddenly more and more of these books got found, with more elaborate stories? I don't buy it.

WAS THE ROMAN EMPIRE MADE UP.png

And this monster capture from his History Science or Fiction goes into great detail showing the parallels between the 2nd and 3rd empires (you'll have to download the image to be able to read it, can't zoom enough here)
 

SonofaBush

New member
Messages
18
Reactions
15
...My biggest problems with what I have read so far is the last mini-ice age. Apparently it was at its worst from sometime in the early 1400s to sometime in the early 1800s. Of course, since we are lied to about just about everything it is possible this Little Ice Age narrative is being pushed just to protect the Scaliger-Petavius timeline. Nevertheless, if true then Byzantium / Tartary would have probably had to settle / colonize America early enough to reach Jamestown, Virginia long before 1607. Why would Tartaria be limited to the western part of North America as many Jewtubers (actually Ziontube, but that doesn't have the same ring to it) and posters in forums such as these seem to think?
Actually, in HOW It Was In Reality, Chapter 8, Fomenko & Nosovskiy claim that America rebelled against Tartary, not Great Britain.

I forgot that I had read in a post by KorbenDallas in a previous thread on this forum that the 1815 Tambora Eruption / Summer of 1816 (or lack thereof) did not affect Russia much. It also looks like there probably was no "Little Ice Age" in reality.

I Gulaged ""siberia" "little ice age"" and so far have found a lot of sites claiming that an Ice Age, perhaps much worse than the recent "little" one is the real threat. However, more relevant to what I was looking for is that so far all articles on why it occurred and what happened seem to indicate 1) not much is known about what happened to the the more sparsely populated regions of Siberia in terms of glaciation, 2) the cause seems to be unidentified and lacking (even the end of the LIA in the Alps at least wasn’t triggered by rising temperatures according to Roger Andrews The end of the Little Ice Age Energy Matters), and 3) that the "Little Ice Age" is most likely in fact a result of the Slutsky Effect where random data appears to be cyclic when smoothed by moving averages but really is not. Is Europe’s Little Ice Age a myth? | World Economic Forum (and elsewhere on many sites)

So while the Little Ice Age may not be a problem for the Fomenko-Nosovsky chronology, I cannot understand why it appears that they do not address it directly.
 
Top