Our timeline could be much shorter than we think...

"I can’t tell you exactly what year it is because we honestly don’t know," said Morpheus in The Matrix. Well, may be we don't know what year it is today, but there clearly are some people out there, who know that we do not know. We have at least two such individuals:

• The Wachowskis Sisters​

Heck, may be they don't know that we do not know either. But in this case they know some individuals who told them that we do not know...

I have seen enough pieces to form a concept in my head, but putting it into words supported by relevant images... it's gonna take a few days. This is definitely not what I'd prefer to write about, but I can't ignore the observed.

• Our Hungarian, Russian (and other European) readers might find the below article quite entertaining and disturbing.

For me, it all started with the below 1591 excerpt.

• The surname of the imperial house of Russia is called Beala. ​
  • It took the origin from the Kings of Hungary.
• Do you see any house of Beala in the official narrative?​
  • Wiki: List of Russian monarchs​
• Here is what we should have had in the below excerpt:​
  • The surname of the imperial house of Russia is called Rurikids.
  • The Rurik line ruled from 862 until 1610.

KD: This Beala vs Rurikids issue appears to be a humongous historical red flag.

• It's a teaser. Links are gonna be down below when we get to the issue.​

That said, I believe that the above "quoted" book is merely a reflection of the historical narrative they had in 1590s. Fortunately for us, it is much harder to lie when your contemporaries are still alive. In 1591, their current historical narrative could be altered only so much.

• From this perspective, in 1591, they simply could not say "the Imperial house of Russia is called Rurikids", because at the time when the book was published, that simply was not the case.
• On a separate note, even as far back as 1591 is supposed to be on the time line, they already did not really know their history, imho. We have some amazing research tools & resources at our fingertips these days. They did not.

We all have our opinions, and in my opinion, we live in a jar of historical lies labeled "TRUTH". Our society has been marinating in this jar for so long, that lies ended up becoming our reality. I doubt that the label will ever change.

• The PTB History Fabrication Tools
• SPQR this & SPQx that. Empires were everywhere.

I do understand that there are those, who fundamentally disagree with Fomenko's findings. To disagree, one would have to verify his calculations, and point out where this Ph. D. in mathematics was wrong.

• As it stands, according to Fomenko, Jesus was born in 1152 AD.​
  • That would be 2021 - 1152 = 869 years ago.​
• I came to think, that Jesus was not a living being, but rather an event, from which we chose to count our years.​

Here are additional reasons to consider that Jesus was an Event and not a Living Being:

• Jesus and Other Gods Born on December 25
• Deities born on Dec 25th

May be further research into the Zodiac Circle could help us to determine what four major events were supposed to signify.

• The conceiving of Jesus by Virgin Mary.
  • Virgo
  • - M/Fish combo?
• The birth of Jesus.
  • Sagittarius is a centaur, but the key aspect (imho) is the arrow (or spear), suggesting an attack.
    • 
  • Considering that the assumed year of his birth is between 6 and 4 BC, we should be asking questions in reference to the AD/BC split.
• The death of Jesus.
  • Aries is Latin for "ram".
    • 
  • Wasn't Jesus the Lamb of God?

• The Resurrection of Jesus.​
  • How do we go from Aries (Sacrificial Lamb) to Pisces (Fishes) in 3 days.
    • I have no idea...
  • Pisces is the twelfth and final astrological sign in the Zodiac.
    • 
  • It spans 330° to 360° of celestial longitude.

The resurrection of Jesus, or anastasis, is the Christian belief that God raised Jesus on the third day after his crucifixion.

• For the Christian tradition, the bodily resurrection was the restoration to life of a transformed body powered by spirit, as described by Paul and the Gospel authors, that led to the establishment of Christianity.​
• They conclude that Jesus was most likely crucified on April 3, AD 33.​

One way or another, but Jesus became associated with fish. There are a few theories out there on how this Jesus-Fish connection might have originated. The entire thing even got its own name: Ichthys.

• The ichthys is a symbol consisting of two intersecting arcs, the ends of the right side extending beyond the meeting point so as to resemble the profile of a fish. ​
• The symbol was adopted by early Christians as a secret symbol. ​
• It is now known colloquially as the "sign of the fish" or the "Jesus fish".​

This here is claimed to be one of the earliest circular ichthys symbols, created by combining the Greek letters ΙΧΘΥΣ.

We sure have an explanation, where every single letter in ΙΧΘΥΣ is explained. Somehow, I doubt that we get the intended meaning though.

• How do we know that this is not some date from I, from IX or of/from "pisces"?​
  • ... the numeric values of the letters are added together to obtain the total.​
  • For example, 241 was represented as ΣΜA (200 + 40 + 1).
  • It was not always the case that the numbers ran from highest to lowest: a 4th-century BC inscription at Athens placed the units to the left of the tens.
  • Greek numerals - Wikipedia​

• How do we know it's not some Bible verse?​
• What's up with the wheel? Could it be the Ezekiel's Wheel +1?​
  • Who knows, may be the IX monogram is somehow related to this wheel...

Ichthyo is a combining form meaning “fish,” used in the formation of compound words. For example - ichthyology. For myself, I see an obscured reference to water, as in ... may be "we are all fish in the water"... just speculating.
In the New Testament Book of Revelation, God says, “I am Alpha and Omega,” meaning that he is the beginning and end of all things. In the Greek alphabet, alpha is the first letter and omega is the last.

• Alpha and Omega - Wikipedia​
• Apocalypse of John​
• I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.​
• Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
• And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
• I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

Well, May be Jesus was the beginning for some, but he sure was the end for others. I think what we have hiding behind this words is this:

• Jesus Event = Apocalypse

In my opinion, there are no predictions in the Bible, because it was written after certain events took place. The narrative can claim whatever they want to. Facts speak for themselves. The great uncial codices or four great uncials are the only remaining uncial codices that contain (or originally contained) the entire text of the Bible.

• Codex Vaticanus– c. 325–350
  • The Codex is named after its place of conservation in the Vatican Library, where it has been kept since at least the 15th century.
• Codex Sinaiticus– c. 330–360
  • discovered in 1844
• Codex Alexandrinus– c. 400–440
  • It derives its name from Alexandria where it resided for a number of years.
  • Then it was given to Charles I of England in the 17th century.
• Codex Ephraemi– c. 450
  • Go figure. My guess it was "discovered" some time in the 19th century.

When we take "dated" out of the equation, the oldest copy of the Bible text source is no older than generous 1400s. There are no prophets. There are those who know, and those who do not, imho.
Reading between the lines of the existing historical lies is the best source of truth we have, imho. Just like I mentioned in the beginning of this article, it was harder to lie about some 1627 AD in 1627 AD than it is in 2021 AD. Seeking out details extracted from those 1627 AD lies could point us towards some of the (more or less) truthful facts.


Historical sources include documents, artifacts, archaeological sites, features, oral transmissions, stone inscriptions, paintings, recorded sounds, images (photographs, motion picture), and oral history. Even ancient relics and ruins, broadly speaking, are historical sources.

• Historical source - Wikipedia

Those, who genuinely tried to figure out the sources of our alleged knowledge of the events of the past know that:

• There are no original written sources of antiquity predating 1400s​
  • As in... ZERO original sources
  • There are only copies of copies.
    • Here is a "copy of a copy" producer, for example: Poggio Bracciolini
• There are no original written sources of anything located after 1400s​
• There are various "dated" documents. Dated by those who "discovered" them after 1400s.​
  • Example: 1390 or 1666: Book of Ballymote. Improperly dated by the PTB?
• We can't even be sure who built certain structures between 1814 and 1818.

It appears that our historical narrative has a hidden, or rather unadvertised pandemic. The amount of made up documents is truly astounding. There is no possible way to determine where the lies end and the truth begins.

• The Donation of Constantine is a forged Roman imperial decree by which the 4th-century emperor Constantine the Great supposedly transferred authority over Rome and the western part of the Roman Empire to the Pope. Composed probably in the 8th century, it was used, especially in the 13th century, in support of claims of political authority by the papacy. In many of the existing manuscripts (handwritten copies of the document), including the oldest one, the document bears the title Constitutum domini Constantini imperatoris.
  • Donation of Constantine - Wikipedia
• William Henry Ireland (1775-1835) and John Payne Collier (1789-1883) are two of the most well-known forgers of early modern documents. While Ireland focused almost exclusively on Shakespeare forgeries, Collier was more broad-reaching in his fakes.
  • List of Notable Forgeries at the Folger
• Forgery was rife in the medieval era, with some of Europe’s leading holy men cooking up reams of counterfeit documents. As modern scholars have established, over half of the surviving texts in the names of the Merovingian rulers of early medieval France and Germany (c481–752) are fakes; a third of those in the names of the Lombard rulers of northern Italy (568–774) are suspect; and similar figures hold true of the nearly 2,000 documents of pre-Conquest England.
  • Why Europe’s holy men turned to counterfeiting
• A new book claims that England’s Gospels of St Augustine and Ireland’s Book of Kells, among other famous medieval manuscripts, are fakes.
  • Those crafty medieval monks - forging their way through history!
• The Spanish Forger is the name given to an unidentified individual who, in the late 19th to early 20th century, created a large number of forgeries of medieval miniatures. The Spanish Forger's works were painted on vellum or parchment leaves of genuine medieval books, using either blank margins or scraping off the original writing. He also "completed" unfinished miniatures or added missing miniatures in medieval choir books. His works fooled many experts and collectors at the time and appear today in the collections of many museums and libraries. Over 200 forgeries have been identified.
  • Spanish Forger - Wikipedia
• In April 2015, about year and a half before the Beyond Words exhibition opened, I contacted some of its organisers to suggest that the illuminated manuscript in which this miniature is found should perhaps not be included in the exhibition.
  • Another "Spanish" Forger?
• Margaret M. Mitchell of the University of Chicago, together with experts in micro-chemical analysis and medieval bookmaking, has concluded that one of the University Library's most enigmatic possessions is a forgery.
  • Archaic Mark is a modern forgery, not a medieval manuscript
• Forgeries tell us much about any civilization. Look at what people are forging, and we will learn what matters to them most. Christians of the early Middle Ages were earnestly counterfeiting relics of saints, to create tangible evidence of supernatural beliefs which they longed to validate. In twelfth-century Europe, people fabricated land charters, inventing documentation of title to feudal property on which livelihoods and society depended. In the sixteenth century, it was commonplace to concoct spurious ancestors, faking up complex family trees for the ambitious, in a time when social ranking was a necessity for advancement.
  • Holy Hoaxes: a beautiful deception

Additional links covering various historical forgeries.

• Forging the Ancient World
• Manuscript Forgeries
• Printing Forgeries
• Shakespeare Forgeries
• Art Forgery
• The Making of Medieval Forgeries: False Documents in Fifteenth-Century England
• Two of the Vatican’s “Ancient” Egyptian Mummies Are 19th Century Fakes
• All of the Museum of the Bible's Dead Sea Scrolls Are Fake, Report Finds
• Terracotta Soldiers Were Actually Created By Excavating Archaeologists
• The Forged 'Ancient' Statues That Fooled the Met's Art Experts for Decades

KD: As you can see, they've been forging everything... what's real out there? Nothing?

It appears that in our PTB provided understanding of the "linear" progress of humanity, we forgot what a beast critical thinking was. In reality, to get us out of the proverbial "technological" darkness, we only needed two people, Tesla and Trouvé:

• List of Nikola Tesla patents​
• Gustave Trouvé - a genius you've never heard of...​

Considering that we were also given two industrial revolutions, it somehow ended up not being at all suspicious that it only took us 156 years to go from a hot air balloon to a turbojet powered aircraft.

• Industrial Revolution
• Second Industrial Revolution
• 1783 - The first untethered manned hot-air balloon flight
• 1939 - The world's first aircraft to fly under turbojet power

Welcome to the BS: While our ancestors have been around for about six million years, the modern form of humans only evolved about 200,000 years ago. Civilization as we know it is only about 6,000 years old, and industrialization started in the earnest only in the 1800s.

• In other words, for approximately 199,800 (99.9% of 200,000) years humans were idiots, while possessing the same brain.
  • Early Homo sapiens had brains within the range of people today, averaging 1,200 ml or more.

If you want to learn all the BS about AD and BC, here is your link. For us, it's important to recognize that there is a split there indicating "before" and "after". "Before" is a totally separate topic I will touch up on later. "After", or Anno Domini, aka AD, is something we do need to cover:

• The term anno Domini is Medieval Latin and means "in the year of the Lord", but is often presented using "our Lord" instead of "the Lord", taken from the full original phrase "anno Domini nostri Jesu Christi", which translates to "in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ". ​
• Where is Jesus Christ hiding in "Anno Domini"?​

Let's take a look at the Second Epistle of Peter 3:10:

• But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
  • What Jesus Christ's birth related events are these?
  • These are events related the so-called "Millennial Kingdom"
    • ... aka the Second Coming
    • ... or we could read the Apocalypse of John
• KJV Source

Then we have these calculations performed by biblical scholars of the past.

• 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.

Questions: Is the "Year of the Lord" and "Anno Domini" even the same thing?

• Judgement by fire is indicative of the Apocalypse times.​
• If this is when the "Day of the Lord" comes, and we count from the "Year of the Lord", wouldn't it mean that the Apocalypse has already happened? ​

I do not see how we can figure out what year we live in. The entire BC/AD split appears to be highly questionable by now. The mere fact that our ancestors, for whatever reason, decided to count their years from a certain "Jesus Birth Event" (that allegedly happened four to six years prior to the BC/AD split) sounds somewhat suspicions. Unfortunately, we are way too used to this "Anno Domini" by now.

• Here is my vision of the time line.
• I do not insist on the specific dates. At the same time, in order to put things on a time line, we do need chronological points of reference.

Considering that the most powerful ruler of the Hunnic Empire was Attila the Hun, it only makes sense to start with the country of Hungary. Today it's a tiny landlocked country in Central Europe. Some will argue that Attila the Hun had anything to do with Hungary as a country:

• Attila was Hun, not Hungarian. Only the English name of the magyarok (the Hungarians) make this notion sound plausible, but in fact Attila lived earlier in present day Hungary before the arrival the Hungarians to the Carpathian basin.
• Source

The issue appears to be way more sophisticated, and it just may be, that Attila the Hun ended up influencing many countries, Hungary included.

Tobolsk is a town in Russia, located at the confluence of the Tobol and Irtysh rivers. Founded in 1590, Tobolsk is the second-oldest Russian settlement east of the Ural Mountains in Asian Russia, and is a historic capital of the Siberia region.

• Wiki: Tobolsk

Why are we talking about the city of Tobolsk? Here is why.

• 1763 Source

Is there any supporting evidence of the Hunnic Empire occupying Siberian lands? Some people think that there might be some.

• Source

Time frames provided on the image below are obviously narrative compliant ones.

The above "Point #1" is right about where the city of Tobolsk is. What else do we know about the city of Tobolsk?


On the below map, we can see where Sibir (10 miles from Tobolks), the capital of Tartars used to be at.

We know that Attila made it to right about here. If he really did hang out somewhere in the vicinity of Sibir/Tobolsk, than his empire was a bit bigger than we were told.


This is probably an appropriate moment to introduce Noah into the picture.

Translated by @Silveryou in here: ...roughly "Here Noah, prince of the Tartars and imperator (in the litteral sense of highest commander/general) of 600 armed men (not completely sure about the word preceding 600, therefore the meaning could be different), commands and moves (in the sense that this is his territory)"

• edit: not "imperator" but "imperat", therefore he "commands upon" and not "the imperator of"... maybe

Noah is also present on plate 3 of the below 1516 Map.

• Lat: Hic dominatur et ambulat contra persos Noy princeps tartarorum et imperator super sexingenta [milia added by hand] armatorum virorum qui omnes prouincias tam Cristianorum quam Saracenorum a capite persie usque ad Syriam sue ditioni subiungavat.
• Eng: Here rules and marches against the Persians Noah, prince of the Tartars and commander of 60,000 soldiers who has brought under his control all of the countries, both Christian and Saracen, from the top of Persia to Syria.
• Noah (lived 600 years before the Flood, and 350 after the Flood)

On the plate 3, we also have Batu Khan:

• Lat: Hic ambulat et dominatur Bathot Magni imperatoris Cham princeps maximus de Casana et imperator super sexingenta [sic] .m. armatorum virorum tam christianorum quam Saracenorum qui cum exercitu suo tempore Estiuali super ripam fluminis ad montes ascendit, tempero uero hyemali ad mare descendit.
• Eng: Here Batu lives as a nomad and rules, the greatest prince of Casana [and descendant] of the great emperor Chan, and commander of sixty thousand soldiers, both Christians and Saracens, who with his army ascends over the riverbank to the mountains in the summer, but in the winter descends to the sea.
• Batu Khan (c. 1205–1255)
  • Batu or Baatu, better known today as Batu Khan of the Golden Horde, was son of Jochi, and thus a grandson of Genghis Khan.

On plate 4 of the same 1516 Map we can see Gog Khan.

• Lat: Magnus Tartarum Gog Chaam Rex regum et dominus dominantium.
• Eng: The great Tartar Gog Khan, king of kings and lord of lords.
• Question: Who was Gog Khan (or Hun)

Note: Translation for the above 1516 map was obtained here. Not surprisingly, they claim that Noy does not mean Noah.

The below info was dismissed by the narrative compilers as total BS, which means we could be on the right track. Sources are:

• 1599 book titled The Principal Navigations, Voyages, Traffiques and Discoveries of the English Nation.​
• 1695 book titled Most Considerable Occurrences that Have Happened in the World from Noah's Flood to the Year of Our Lord J.C. 1520.​
• We need to remember that these books also lie, but they had to lie less at the time.​

The below passage suggests that Ninus was Nimrod's grandson. We may, or may not need this detail later.

That's a big a*s empire I've never heard of... what about you?


I don't know if any of the above was of any assistance leading the reader to Attila the Hun, but there you go.

• 1664: The history of Hungaria and Transylvania.

This "empire fell apart" story reminded me of the Alexander the Great narrative.

• Additionally, there is a situation, where we have approximately 2300-2500 year gap between Nimrod and Attila. Chances are, this is how devious historical lies are.
• I did not try to track down two sons of Attila, neither did I try to figure out which one of the Nimrod's nephews could be Attila. This article is getting long as it is, and I'm not even close to being done.

I think we were fed a bunch of phantom empires here, where the Hunnic Empire and the Golden Horde Empire are one and the same. I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few other "empires" would fall into the same "phantom" category. Let's take a look...

The Hunnic Empire (370 AD - 459 AD): ~ 89 years

• No one knows exactly where the Huns came from.
• Some scholars believe they originated from the nomad Xiongnu people.
• Other historians believe the Huns originated from Kazakhstan, or elsewhere in Asia.
• Prior to the 4th century, the Huns traveled in small groups led by chieftains and had no known individual king or leader.
• They arrived in southeastern Europe around 370 A.D. and conquered one territory after another for over 70 years.
• By 459, the Hun Empire had collapsed, and many Huns assimilated into the civilizations they’d once dominated.
• Source

This is like pretty BS: came from nowhere, and disappeared into nowhere.

• This is like super convenient for them controllers, "No Body, No Crime".

Let's take a look at a narrative compliant map of the Hunnic Empire.

Empire of Alexander the Great (336 BC - 323 BC): ~13 years

• He succeeded his father King Philip II to the throne at the age of 20 .​
• By the age of thirty, he had created one of the largest empires in history, stretching from Greece to northwestern India. ​
• He was undefeated in battle and is widely considered to be one of history's most successful military commanders.​
• Several factors caused the sudden collapse of the Empire that Alexander built. These include: ​
  • the early and the somewhat unexpected death of the great king, ​
  • absence of a capable successor, ​
  • rebellious generals, ​
  • the size of the territories Alexander had invaded​
• Source​

Sounds like a military fairy tale with an end similar to that of the Hunnic Empire. It's almost like Alexander knew not to invade areas the Hunnic Empire was gonna invade 700 years later.

The Golden Horde (1242 AD – 1502 AD): ~260 years

• The Golden Horde was originally a Mongol and later Turkicized khanate established in the 13th century and originating as the northwestern sector of the Mongol Empire.​
  • At his death in 1227, Genghis Khan divided the Mongol Empire amongst his four sons as appanages, but the Empire remained united under the supreme khan. ​
• With the fragmentation of the Mongol Empire after 1259 it became a functionally separate khanate. ​
• You'd have to read the narrative, because it's rather creative.​
• Source​

The size is deceiving, because the Golden Horde was a part of a much bigger Mongol Empire.
The Mongol Empire (1206–1368): ~162 years

• The Mongol Empire of the 13th and 14th centuries was the largest contiguous land empire in history and the second largest empire by landmass, second only to the British Empire.​
• The Mongol Empire emerged from the unification of several nomadic tribes in the Mongol homeland under the leadership of Genghis Khan (c. 1162–1227), whom a council proclaimed as the ruler of all Mongols in 1206.​
• The empire began to split due to wars over succession, as the grandchildren of Genghis Khan disputed whether the royal line should follow from his son and initial heir Ögedei or from one of his other sons, such as Tolui, Chagatai, or Jochi.​
• Source

The Ottoman Empire (1299–1922): ~623

• At its peak in the 1500s, the Ottoman Empire was one of the biggest military and economic powers in the world.​
• The empire controlled its territory with a powerful military, lucrative commerce, and impressive achievements in fields ranging from architecture to astronomy.​
• But it didn’t last. Though the Ottoman Empire persisted for 600 years, it succumbed to what most historians describe as a long, slow decline, despite efforts to modernize.​
• What caused the once awe-inspiring Ottoman Empire collapse? Historians aren’t in complete agreement.​
• Source​

The Timurid Empire (1370-1507): ~137

• The empire was founded by Timur (also known as Tamerlane), who established the empire between 1370 and his death in 1405.​
• He envisioned himself as the great restorer of the Mongol Empire of Genghis Khan, regarded himself as Genghis's heir.​
• The power of Timurids declined rapidly during the second half of the 15th century, largely due to the Timurid tradition of partitioning the empire.​
• By 1500, the divided and wartorn Timurid Empire had lost control of most of its territory.​
• Source​

An Opinion: I think the below map is indictive of a common denominator. Whether Tartary, Scythia, or whatever other name it might have had.


We can picture it this way too... may be.

• I will try to elaborate on the maps portion of the article in the overall summary.​

I finally made it to what I actually wanted to talk about. So, we have this issue, where we are faced with an example of a major historical inconsistency. Here is what we have in every contemporary textbook:

• Russia has no history prior to 862 AD. The ancestors of modern Russians are the Slavic tribes, whose original home is thought by some scholars to have been the wooded areas of the Pinsk Marshes, one of the largest wetlands in Europe.
• The rest of the BS mambo jumbo is see here.

The establishment of the first East Slavic states in the 9th century coincided with the arrival of Varangians, the Vikings who ventured along the waterways extending from the eastern Baltic to the Black and Caspian Seas.

• According to the Primary Chronicle, a Varangian from the Rus' people, named Rurik, was elected ruler of Novgorod in 862.

This "Primary Chronicle" has the same issue all other pre-1400s documents do.

• Tradition long regarded the original compilation as the work of a monk named Nestor (c. 1056 – c. 1114); hence scholars spoke of Nestor's Chronicle or of Nestor's manuscript.
  • His compilation has not survived.
• Because the original of the chronicle as well as the earliest known copies are lost, it is difficult to establish the original content of the chronicle.
• The two main sources for the chronicle's text as it is known presently are the Laurentian Codex and the Hypatian Codex.
• The Laurentian Codex was compiled in what are today Russian lands by the Nizhegorod monk Laurentius for the Prince Dmitry Konstantinovich in 1377.
• The Hypatian Codex dates to the 15th century. It was written in what are today Ukrainian lands and incorporates much information from the lost 12th-century Kievan Chronicle and 13th-century Galician-Volhynian Chronicle.
  • Galician Volhynian Chronicle was discovered in 1809 by the Russian historian and opinion writer Nikolay Karamzin as a final part of the 15th century Hypatian Codex.
  • Kievan Chronicle is known from a single copy in the 15th-century Hypatian Codex, where it is sandwiched between the Primary Chronicle and the Galician–Volhynian Chronicle.

These comic books do look cool though.


Conclusion: Rurik was the one who started an organized state. To a certain degree, he was the founder of Russia.

• That is per the narrative.

The Narrative: The only information about Rurik is contained in the 12th-century Primary Chronicle written by one Nestor, which states that Chuds, Eastern Slavs, Merias, Veses, and Krivichs "drove the Varangians back beyond the sea, refused to pay them tribute, and set out to govern themselves".

• Afterwards the tribes started fighting each other and decided to invite the Varangians, led by Rurik, to reestablish order.
• Rurik came in 860–862 along with his brothers Sineus and Truvor and a large retinue.

Question: Where did the current narrative lose the fourth brother Variuus?

I've been saying for a long time that in our field of research, patterns are everything. Every single book, no matter how old it is, was pre-printed or pre-written with an incorporated set of lies. In this case we have four individuals establishing or continuing countries and empires.

Nimrod

• 1 - Assyrius
• 2 - Medus
• 3 - Moscus
• 4 - Magog

Russia

• 1 - Trubor
• 2 - Rurico
• 3 - Sinees
• 4 - Variuus

Ukraine

• 1 - Kio
• 2 - Scieko
• 3 - Choranus
• 4 - Libeda

The Empire of Alexander the Great

• 1 - Ptolemaic Egypt
• 2 - Seleucid Mesopotamia and Central Asia
• 3 - Attalid Anatolia
• 4 - Antigonid Macedon

The Mongol Empire

• 1 - Golden Horde
• 2 - Chagatai Khanate
• 3 - Ilkhanate
• 4 - Yuan dynasty

There gotta be more, methinks...

• Four kingdoms of Daniel: The four kingdoms of Daniel are four kingdoms which, according to the Book of Daniel, precede the "end-times" and the "Kingdom of God".

Let's see what various texts have to say in reference to what house or dynasty the Russian royalty used to belong to. We are supposed to see Rurik for the surname. Here is straight out of wikipedia. I've included Hungary, because this is how I got into this entire mess.

• List of Russian monarchs - Wikipedia
• List of Hungarian monarchs - Wikipedia

Now look at the image below. Ignore the "cruelty" portion. The PTB started orchestrating their narrative a very long time ago. Fortunately for us, at some point in time they could not switch last names because it would have been too obvious.

• Who is Ivan Vasilyevich Beala?

From the book it is obvious that the ruler at hand is Ivan (the 4th) Vasilyevich Ririk aka Ivan the Terribe (1530-1584). That is per the current narrative.

Note: From here on Beala = Béla due to the way this name can also be spelled.


The only Turk of such significance out there (imho) is Mehmed the Conqueror (1432-1481)

• List of campaigns of Mehmed the Conqueror​

Per the narrative, there are four kings named Bela in the House of Árpád.

• Béla I of Hungary (1015-1063)
• Béla II of Hungary (1109-1141) aka Béla the Blind
• Béla III of Hungary (1148-1196)
• Béla IV of Hungary (1206-1270)

Note: All four of these Béla's belong to the Arpad dynasty. Nowhere in the todays narrative do we see the Béla dynasty.

The Árpáds were the ruling dynasty of the Principality of Hungary in the 9th and 10th centuries and of the Kingdom of Hungary from 1000 to 1301. The dynasty was named after Grand Prince Árpád who was the head of the Hungarian tribal federation during the conquest of the Carpathian Basin, c. 895.

• It is also referred to as the Turul dynasty, but rarely.
• Both the first Grand Prince of the Hungarians Álmos and the first king of Hungary Saint Stephen were members of the dynasty.
• Seven members of the dynasty were canonized or beatified by the Roman Catholic Church;
  • therefore, since the 13th century the dynasty has often been referred to as the "Kindred of the Holy Kings".
  • Two Árpáds were recognized as Saints by the Eastern Orthodox Church.
• The dynasty came to end in 1301 with the death of King Andrew III of Hungary, while the last member of the House of Árpád, Andrew's daughter, Blessed Elizabeth of Töss, died in 1336 or 1338.

As it says above, the Arpad Dynasty was also referred to as the Turul Dynasty. The Turul is a mythological bird of prey, mostly depicted as a hawk or falcon, in Turkish tradition and Hungarian traditions. It is a national symbol of Hungarians. The name "Turul" is probably based on bla-bla-bla...
I don't know how old our English language is, but this bird's name sure sounds like "To Rule". Anyways...

It is also said that the mythic bird, the Turul, is the original bird of the original Hungarians, the Magyars, who migrated out of the plains of Central Asia. The legend says that in 896 AD, the bird dropped its sword in what is now modern day Budapest, indicating to the Magyars that the area was to be their homeland.

• Turul - Wikipedia​

Note: And how about them little coincidences...



Apologies, could not help it. A Toruk Makto is a Na'vi individual who successfully manages to ride a great leonopteryx (Na'vi name: toruk). There had only been five Toruk Maktos prior to Jake Sully, and they are spoken of with great respect and honour.

• Source​

Árpád was the head of the confederation of the Magyar tribes at the turn of the 9th and 10th centuries. He might have been either the sacred ruler or kende of the Hungarians, or their military leader or gyula, although most details of his life are debated by historians, because different sources contain contradictory information.

• Despite this, many Hungarians refer to him as the "founder of our country", and Árpád's preeminent role in the Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin has been emphasized by some later chronicles.
• The dynasty descending from Árpád ruled the Kingdom of Hungary until 1301.

Rurik, according to the 12th-century Primary Chronicle, was a Varangian chieftain of the Rus' who in the year 862 gained control of Ladoga, and built Novgorod in the same year. This legendary figure was considered by later rulers to be the founder of the Rurik dynasty, which ruled the Kievan Rus' and its successor states, including the Kingdom of Ruthenia, the Principality of Tver, Grand Duchy of Vladimir, the Grand Duchy of Moscow, the Novgorod Republic and the Tsardom of Russia, until the 17th century.

• The only information about Rurik is contained in the 12th-century Primary Chronicle written by one Nestor.
  • The credability of this "Primary" chronicle was covered above.
• Source

The Rurik dynasty, or Rurikids was a dynasty founded by the Varangian prince Rurik, who established himself in Novgorod around the year AD 862. The Rurikids were the ruling dynasty of Kievan Rus' before it was finally disintegrated in the mid-13th century, as well as the successor Rus' principalities and Rus' prince republics of Novgorod, Pskov, Vladimir-Suzdal, Ryazan, Smolensk, Galicia-Volhynia (after 1199), Chernigov, and the Grand Duchy of Moscow (from 1263).

• The Romanovych branch of the dynasty ruled central and western Rus'. These territories were unified by Roman the Great and his son Danylo, who was later crowned king of Galicia–Volhynia.
  • This Roman the Great and Danilo (some Daniel?) are uber interesting. Anything "Roman" should be scrutinized, especially when on paper these "Romanovich" people have nothing to do with the dynasty of Romanoffs.
• After the line's extinction, the kingdom was absorbed by Poland and Lithuania, and the title of its king eventually passed to the ruler of Austro-Hungary.
• Continuous Rurikid sovereignty from the ninth century to the fourteenth represents part of Ukraine's historical process.
• In Ukrainian historiography, Rus' civilization - sometimes called Ukraine-Rus' - is not considered to have ended in 1240, but merely to have shifted its centre slightly westward.

As a ruling dynasty, the Rurik dynasty held its own in some parts of Rus' for a total of twenty-one generations in male-line succession, from Rurik (died 879) to Feodor I of Russia (died 1598), a period of more than 700 years. They are one of Europe's oldest royal houses.

• Source

Ivan III Vasilyevich (1440 -1505), also known as Ivan the Great, was a Grand Prince of Moscow and Grand Prince of all Rus'. Ivan served as the co-ruler and regent for his blind father Vasily II from the mid-1450s before he officially ascended the throne in 1462.

• He tripled the territory of his state, ended the dominance of the Mongols/Tatars over Russia, renovated the Moscow Kremlin, introduced a new legal codex and laid the foundations of the Russian state.
• His 1480 victory over the Great Horde is cited as the restoration of Russian independence 240 years after the fall of Kiev to Mongols' invasion.
• Ivan was the first Russian ruler to style himself "tsar", albeit not as an official title. Through marriage to Sofia Paleologue, he made the double-headed eagle Russia's coat of arms and adopted the idea of Moscow as Third Rome.
• His 43-year reign was one of the longest in Russian history, second only to that of his grandson Ivan IV (The Terrible).
• Ivan III of Russia - The Rurik Dynasty - (1440 -1505)

Important: If Ivan the 3rd really said this, it should turn the entire historical narrative of Russia upside down.

• 1591 Source​

In semi-normal English: That their ancestors came not of the Russe nation, Ivan III Vasilyevich father to this Emperor - Vasily III (1479-1533) - would many times boast disdaining (as should seem) to have his progeny derived from the Russe blood. As namely to an Englishman his goldsmith, that have received bullion of him to make certain plate: whom the Emperor commanded to look well to his weight. For my Russes (said be) are thieves all. Whereat the workman looking upon the Emperor, began to smile.

• The Emperor (Ivan III of Russia) being of quick concept, charged him to tell him what he smiled at.​
• If your Majesty will pardon me (quote the goldsmith) I will tell you.​
• Your highness said that Russes were all thieves, and forgot in the mean while that yourself was a Russe.​
• I thought so (quote the Emperor) but was deceived.​
• For I am no Russe, my ancestors were Germans, for so they account for the Hungarians to be part of the German nation, though they indeed come from the Huns, that invaded those countries and rested in those parts of Pannonia, now called Hungary.​

The below excerpt could (probably) also explain why Russia was being run (for so long) by the Holstein-Gottorp Dynasty.

• To be exact, by its Russian Cade Branch: House of Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov.​

In simple terms... Ivan III of Russia stated that his ancestors were Huns.

Note: A particular attention should be paid to the "Blind" issue:

• Béla II of Hungary - Béla the Blind

Which one of the Bela Kings was the blind one? This one was:

• Béla II of Hungary (1109-1141) aka Béla the Blind

Conclusion: The name of the dynasty of Russian tsars aka czars comes from this Bela II of Hungary, This is what the above paragraph clearly states. It is also obvious that Huns were the ancestors of Ivan II of Russia, per his own claim.

• In other words, Ivan III of Russia was the descendent of Attila.

I do start to think that historical doubles, triples and possibly quadruples are probably more numerous than we could possibly imagine. I doubt that we have gazillions of different "never lost a battle" / "scourge of God" / same area covering people. I think we might a few multiplied into a "legion". In the end, we get thousands years of history. Thousands years of history we do not really have. Some of these doubles do not share the exact same biography, most are separated by hundreds and thousands of years, but all of them do contribute to the overall lies we are faced with.

• Then Jesus asked him, “What is your name?” “My name is Legion,” he replied, “ for we are many."​
  • Mark 5:9​

For more info on historical doubles you should probably look up Mr. Fomenko. These are the most obvious ones I notices while compiling this article.

• Árpád vs Arpachshad vs Rurik​
• Béla II the Blind vs Vasily II the Blind​
• Attila Scourge of God vs Genghis Khan Scourge of God​
• Otto Emperors vs Emperor Otho​

"Horned" ones were always serious conquerors and warriors:

• Alexander the Great vs Attila vs Moses vs Dhu al-Qarnayn vs Skanderbeg

Events fall into the same category:

• Siege of Constantinople (860) vs Fall of Constantinople (1453)

Though Attila does throw somewhat of a monkey wrench into the framework. Why does he have the double-headed eagle (or Turul) there?


When did Attila become a Roman emperor?

• Ten roundels with bust-length portraits of Roman Emperors, with Augustus on the top flanked by plants and fruits, and three rows of three roundels, each with the sitter's name on a small tablet below the image; illustration to Weigel's 'Sculptura historiarum et temporum memoratrix' (1679).
• Source

Note: I think these are the prototypes for our historical doubles. Different Peter the Greats, Arpads, Bealas, Tamerlanes, Alexander the Greats and Ivan the Terribles were just phantom copies of the above presented individuals (or individuals similar to them).

---

Additional Links & Info:

• Hunor and Magor​
• The PTB History Fabrication Tools​
• SPQR this & SPQx that. Empires were everywhere​
• Missing Photographs​

KD Summary: To be honest, this stuff is beyond my ability to process information. I think I am able to grasp the concept. At the same time, to systemically analyze the situation we are in, that would probably require a faculty. Here are a few final points I'd like to make. These are just my thoughts:

• I suspect a much shorter time line of the known history. I understand that it sounds a bit insane, but we have what we have.
• I start to think that 400s, 1400s,1600s and 1800s possibly cover the same events. These events are outfitted with different names and uniforms, but they nevertheless are the same events. That is in my developing humble opinion.
  • Question: Urban Fires and Earthquakes = Capriccio Ruin Artists?
• ~1870s is probably where we can start looking for the beginning of our "known" times... but then we run into SF 1906 and SF 1915.

• I do think that the Bible was written after approximately year 1400 AD on the common timeline.
• Jesus Christ is not a person. It's "Jesus Events" that we call Jesus Christ,
• "Jesus Events" happened at least twice. The first one was accompanied by Water, the second one by Fire.
• Timing of these "Jesus Events" is hidden in the rotating celestial bodies. That would be different Zodiac circles.
• Peter the Great is not a real name, or if it is a real name, it belonged to someone else.
• Google Ngram is one of the best research tools we have, and we need to use it more often.
• All printed historical books contain lies. It's even worth with the handwritten text materials.
• It's been East vs. West, for a relatively short period of time.
  • Was it Tartary olim Scythia representing the East?
• Or... was it Controllers vs the survivors of various Jesus Events?