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:
 
Click to expand...
awarewolf said:
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.
Click to expand...
This resonates with me to a degree. I am 100% failing to understand what happened between 1775 and 1915. From there, it's kinda similar to a fruit of the poisonous tree, in a way. Fomenko did some monumental research as far as dates go, but I'm not sure that events he dated reflect what really happened back then.
 
KorbenDallas said:
This resonates with me to a degree. I am 100% failing to understand what happened between 1775 and 1915. From there, it's kinda similar to a fruit of the poisonous tree, in a way. Fomenko did some monumental research as far as dates go, but I'm not sure that events he dated reflect what really happened back then.
Click to expand...
I understand the feeling, to me anything prior to let's say 1780 is at best bogus. I'm still trying to piece together what looks to be world war zero between 1800-1830, and the details & overlaps make the subject like a giant mind hammer
 
BusyBaci said:
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.
Click to expand...
My point was that I don't dismiss Fomenko. I wasn't trying to be egotistical; I was saying I think he's incorrect on a specific point, but I agree with him on others. I even offered evidence as to why I feel that way; which you do not seem to have addressed. And, furthermore, assuming what my or others' research on or off this board is like, "they have just read a tiny bit of chapters from a book or they just watched a couple of videos from Jon Levi" is pretty egotistical of you, to be quite honest.

completely unnecessary, but why not

My main point I last made here, and a question I feel still needs answering: What is the origin of the Lutheran Chronograph that Fomenko uses as a chronological source? It is said to have been translated from Latin to Russian in 1720 (20 years after the Star Temple dating?) from a "lost Latin copy" of which we (Russian sources included) seem to know absolutely nothing about.

Silveryou said:
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?
Click to expand...
The reason for the doubt is the "Lutheran Chronograph" has the same mysterious origins as a lot of our sources on "Ancient Rome". And as for going to other forums, let me be clear that I'm not a critic of Fomenko; I'm not here to attack him or his work, only to note where I felt a mistake or error seemed to have occurred, and to hopefully get others' opinions on that....

I've seen how people talk about Fomenko on "normal" history forums, dismissing him as a pseudohistorian, etc., and I'd rather engage with people that believe in his work (as I do for the most part).
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.
Click to expand...
I will quote the following from a link I provided earlier.
Though I originally thought it to be from Fomenko, it appears to have been Nosovsky, his partner?
Let us note that the primary source of the 17th century we used, codenamed “Lutheran Chronograph,” is a voluminous book of 900 large format pages in small print, Fig. 9.32. It provides an exceptionally detailed and extensive presentation of the original historical and chronological version of Scaliger-Petavius as it stood in the second half of the 17th century. Of the 900 pages of the Chronograph, less than one page is devoted to the history of Egypt[41], l.31. For comparison: the history of another “ancient” kingdom - the Assyrian-Persian (from Nimrod to Alexander the Great) in [41] is given 30 pages [41], l.66...80. That is -thirty times morethan Egyptian history.

9.18. Египетская история по хронографу 1681 года. Новая Хронология Египта - II [с иллюстрациями]
Click to expand...
Was that book truly their primary source of the 17th century that they used, as translated text seems to indicate?

A valuable source, which we used many times in our studies.
Click to expand...
LUTHERAN CHRONOGRAPH
Click to expand...

To be clear, I'm not trying to lecture to anyone; I'm trying to bring attention to a book that seems to have extremely dubious origins, and that was used significantly as a source for Fomenko & Nosovsky's 17th (and pre-17th?) century chronological research. The hope was that we investigate it further, considering the nature of this forum.
 
Last edited:
awarewolf said:
The reason for the doubt is the "Lutheran Chronograph" has the same mysterious origins as a lot of our sources on "Ancient Rome".
Click to expand...
I feel like the reason why @BusyBaci was talking about that sort of naivety we encounter every now and then from the part of those who haven't read "recentist literature" or haven't read enough is that they pose questions which they should not pose if they actually did their job in completing their readings. I must admit that I started from the vantage point of being well more than prepared when the first forums came about. To be fair I was already into it before Sylvie and other youtubers began their fashionable interpretation of what they had read (or possibly and maybe probably HADN'T read).

So it's really hard to answer a question about where a book comes from when there's actually no mathematical proof whatsoever about chronological alteration after the period indicated by Fomenko. Asking Fomenko to produce "proofs" on the basis of the "mindset" that Fomenko himself spreaded through his work seems to me "silly", as BusyBuci said before.

Now I'm not saying that you are doing it on purpose but your question litteraly makes no sense because it has no foundation whatsoever. Books may have been manipulated through the last four hundred years but this is not the point when it comes to Fomenko's research.

Fomenko and Nosovsky use statistics. If you go and read their books you will find that your doubts make no sense in relation to what those Russians have done with those sources. It is mostly about a quantitative research done with numbers. I don't think you are getting the point to be honest... and you are excused in any case since you started reading very recently from what I understand.

So my only suggestion is that you should do yourself a favour and reading everything before questioning, so that we may share a common ground and any kind of answer given may be easily understood. Don't do like those who roam these forums who talk about "doubts" they have as if they woke up some morning like thay had some kind of revelations. They were fed with bogus content form hundreds of youtubers and many other quack "researchers" always ready to add their own bogusness.

Now this is probably the millionth time I answer like this. Please don't be one of those who answer back again. I am into these things from 2007, more or less, and I'm tired of hearing the same things over and over again to be honest.

When it comes to the "Lutheran Chronograph", Fomenko is using it through his mathematical methods. He is not READING it like we do. If you want to know more about what they do just read their books!

Since I'm here I want also to address the other part of your sentence:
the same mysterious origins as a lot of our sources on "Ancient Rome"
Click to expand...
While there's certainly some mystery involved with those books, it has never been stated by Fomenko in any of the books I've read that those books are FALSE, or that they have no value, or that they are not "ancient". Once again I'm not trying to put my words in your mouth, but these kind of sentences and the general attitude of "everything is false and happened yesterday" really seems to me as coming out of people with the lowest IQ possible, and I'm not saying you are one of those.

Once again I have to quote this funny story brought up by @BusyBaci:
... and I've read many of these deliriums to be fair!

I also think @awarewolf that we should leave this thread and go somewhere else or maybe not talk anymore about these META subjects. I don't think anybody has a problem with what you think. It's just a problem with the usual "I believe Fomenko is wrong" only to then propose yet another baseless "theory"... and I'm not saying you've done.
 
Please don't be one of those who answer back again.
Click to expand...
Please don't be one of those that tries to shut down discussions.
Especially after quotereplying at me with paragraphs, while you're also insinuating I am naive or low IQ.
Silveryou said:
While there's certainly some mystery involved with those books, it has never been stated by Fomenko in any of the books I've read that those books are FALSE, or that they have no value, or that they are not "ancient". Once again I'm not trying to put my words in your mouth, but these kind of sentences and the general attitude of "everything is false and happened yesterday" really seems to me as coming out of people with the lowest IQ possible, and I'm not saying you are one of those.
Click to expand...
It sounds to me like you feel this theory has no basis just because Fomenko didn't mention it. If you've been doing this research since 2007 as you claim, surely you've encountered other historians, and the mass of threads and researchers who have pointed out that we don't have any primary sources about Ancient Rome before the 14/1500s; only copies of copies, usually sources that were "lost" and are no longer available. Essentially a chain of hearsay.
I've combed these threads and more, and I've used various sources, Google Ngrams, Academia.edu, Archive.org, government websites hosting copies of old books, multiple search engines, and I find the research (if one does it..) agrees with this hypothesis.

Silveryou said:
Now I'm not saying that you are doing it on purpose but your question litteraly makes no sense because it has no foundation whatsoever. Books may have been manipulated through the last four hundred years but this is not the point when it comes to Fomenko's research.

Fomenko and Nosovsky use statistics. If you go and read their books you will find that your doubts make no sense in relation to what those Russians have done with those sources. It is mostly about a quantitative research done with numbers.
Click to expand...
They use statistics... based on chronological research. Their site itself says they use the source. Pointing out the origin of a source they use (and appear to themselves hold in high regard), which seems to have appeared out of thin air shortly after Russia changed its calendar, is not at all baseless.

I'm not arguing about his maths... but if his calculations are based on, or include, events that did not transpire, I think that is important to note and look into further.

Just found this while I was looking (& am still looking) for something else to share here in regard to Fomenko's work...
Dvinskoy Letopisets, for instance, had been known in advance, and we had no reasons to doubt its correctness, since it belongs to the XIV-XVIII century, that is, the epoch of more or less dependable chronology.
Click to expand...

1702505486545.png

1702505500429.png

1702505509079.png
 
Last edited:
Oh my God! Ok you have low IQ. Are you happy now?
awarewolf said:
It sounds to me like you feel this theory has no basis just because Fomenko didn't mention it. If you've been doing this research since 2007 as you claim, surely you've encountered other historians, and the mass of threads and researchers who have pointed out that we don't have any primary sources about Ancient Rome before the 14/1500s; only copies of copies, usually sources that were "lost" and are no longer available. Essentially a chain of hearsay.

SH Archive - The History of Rome has no Surviving Sources
How Fake Is Roman Antiquity? (Part 1/3, Unz review)

I've combed these threads and more, and I've used various sources, Google Ngrams, Academia.edu, Archive.org, government websites hosting copies of old books, multiple search engines, and I find the research (if one does it..) agrees with this hypothesis.
Click to expand...
Do you realize all the stuff you are posting comes from Fomenko? Do you realize it is a reinterpretation, aka a "theory"? Do you realize this is not the original message which you don't know because you have read nothing? Do you realize no one cares of "theory" number #1000000 when there's no chronology backing it?

This is what I'm talking about. You're welcome.
awarewolf said:
They use statistics... based on chronological research. Their site itself says they use the source. Pointing out the origin of a source they use (and appear to themselves hold in high regard), which seems to have appeared out of thin air shortly after Russia changed its calendar, is not at all baseless.

I'm not arguing about his maths... but if his calculations are based on, or include, events that did not transpire, I think that is important to note and look into further.
Click to expand...
They use statistics and you don't understand what it means because you spend your time reading second hand theories based upon Fomenko's work.

I don't think it's about me not wanting to discuss. It's just that there's no discussion with people who haven't read and understood anything yet but try to convince me (or us) that they did.
Using the "Lutheran Chronicles" as a source is totally fine and it's already explained in their books side by side with the explanation of why is totally fine to use Livy's Ab Urbe Condita.
You don't know this stuff because you have not read it from the source (Fomenko) and yet you pretend to argue about things you don't know.
awarewolf said:
Just found this while I was looking for something else (still looking for that) to share here in regard to Fomenko's work...
Click to expand...
Perfect. That explains it all for one who has actually read their books.

I've lost interest in this conversasion to be honest and I'm stopping it right now since this is not my website.
 
Silveryou said:
You don't know this stuff because you have not read it from the source (Fomenko) and yet you pretend to argue about things you don't know.
Click to expand...
See my new edits. Or be done, if that's what you'd rather. You've been kind of rude tbh and don't seem to understand what I'm trying to say, while arguing that I don't understand Fomenko.. 😅

Silveryou said:
I'm stopping it right now since this is not my website.
Click to expand...
Was thinking about this more and it seems telling. Feels like an inference that you would have tried to lock the thread or ban me if it was your website. Hoping that's not the case, but I honestly don't trust you at this point.
 
Last edited:
awarewolf said:
Was thinking about this more and it seems telling. Feels like an inference that you would have tried to lock the thread or ban me if it was your website. Hoping that's not the case, but I honestly don't trust you at this point.
Click to expand...
Last word. It means that you are waisting my time and YOUR time at this point AND it also means that we are both filling a thread with useless arguings over things that would be easily solved by reading the source (Fomenko).
 
Silveryou said:
it also means that we are both filling a thread with useless arguings over things that would be easily solved by reading the source (Fomenko).
Click to expand...

I agree with the first half of this and definitely don't want to continue with the arguing; but I do disagree about this being solved by reading the source, considering the points I laid out on the previous page of this thread. That said, I will continue reading Fomenko and others.. I just wish more people would investigate these sources instead of taking everything an author says to be true without trying to verify it, when plentiful resources online exist to do be able to do so. In my opinion, that's no different from believing schoolbook propaganda without checking it yourself, so my point still stands about the reliance on the Lutheran Chronograph.
 
awarewolf said:
In my opinion, that's no different from believing schoolbook propaganda without checking it yourself, so my point still stands about the reliance on the Lutheran Chronograph.
Click to expand...
Ok I said it was my last word but I want to try again.

You don't have to worry about people falling from propaganda by Fomenko through these Lutheran Chronograh because normal people don't actually have the tools to verify what Fomenko is doing.
So if you want to convince me (or us) that you are way ahead you are simply making a fool of yourself, unless you prove to have the mathematical skills necessary to understand what Fomenko did.
And if you manage to do it while at the same time enthusiastically posting posts based on Fomenko's work then you are a double fool, since the methods used are basically the same using other sources that you don't even know about and you can't possibly verify without the mathematical skills to do it.
Fomenko is a chronologist, not a historian.
 
Silveryou said:
So if you want to convince me (or us) that you are way ahead
Click to expand...
Was never my intention. Nor did I ever suggest I was. You would do well to assume less, and research (and honestly, meditate) more.
because normal people don't actually have the tools to verify what Fomenko is doing.
Click to expand...
Disagree. Not an easy task, and a very time-consuming one, but it is certainly possible to find the sources he used in his books and trace them:

Sources Fomenko used for the history of Byzantium; none appear to date prior to the 1850s, but we can find those books online and check who they themselves cite.
It is also possible for mathematicians to use his data (of which he has provided plenty in his books).

The tools exist online to track down books. And computing has come a long way, to the point where there are plenty of open-source and free to download softwares to do advanced mathematics with. The tools are out there, and the work can be done. Don't mistake what I'm saying for me saying it would be easy for me to do so; it would not.
Fomenko is a chronologist, not a historian.
Click to expand...
Those are both very much tied: "Chronology is the science of locating historical events in time."

Ok I said it was my last word but I want to try again.
Click to expand...
If you want to have the last word so badly, you would do well to not call others fools while trying to say your part. You also appear to me as someone that has utmost faith in everything Fomenko has written, while declaring it impossible for anyone to verify his work, which I find concerning, but mostly extremely illogical.
 
awarewolf said:
Disagree. Not an easy task, and a very time-consuming one, but it is certainly possible to find the sources he used in his books and trace them:
Click to expand...
You don't understand what I'm saying.

Once again for the last time. People cannot verify what Fomenko does because we are not mathematicians. It's not about the sources but how they use them. Do you get it now?
awarewolf said:
It is also possible for mathematicians to use his data (of which he has provided plenty in his books).
Click to expand...
Arw you one of those? This conversation is getting more and more absurd...
awarewolf said:
The tools exist online to track down books. And computing has come a long way, to the point where there are plenty of open-source and free to download softwares to do advanced mathematics with. The tools are out there, and the work can be done. Don't mistake what I'm saying for me saying it would be easy for me to do so; it would not.
Click to expand...
What tools exactly? What are you talking about? And why you do you pose as the (unrequested) champion of awareness if you can't provide what you claim you are providing? Why are you crying wolf at these Lutheran Chronograph while saying we "normal people" should do the rest? Crying wolf is typical for those who want to create doubt into weak minds. You're not doing well here.
If you want to be trusted do your job instead of pointing at non-existing tools on the web or at least provide those tools yourself.
awarewolf said:
Those are both very much tied: "Chronology is the science of locating historical events in time."
Click to expand...
Exactly. He is a chronologist.
A cook is a guy who prepares meals but he doesn't grow plants or breed animals.
awarewolf said:
If you want to have the last word so badly, you would do well to not call others fools while trying to say your part. You also appear to me as someone that has utmost faith in everything Fomenko has written, while declaring it impossible for anyone to verify his work, which I find concerning, but mostly extremely illogical.
Click to expand...
Already heard it a billion times. I don't have faith in anything but I have the humility to recognize that I can't prove or unprove what Fomenko says. Instead you are making a fool of yourself trying to disprove Fomenko while not even knowing the sense of his use of the sources (statistical analysis) and claiming to be the champion of those who doubt while absolutely doing nothing to prove it.
If you have the mathematical skills to analyse Fomenko's resaerch just do it instaed of wasting our time, but since you have not shown a single bit of mathematical analysis until now and have already admitted that you have not even completed one single reading I think you are just a bluff, with all due respect.

Oh and last thing @awarewolf, if you ever show us the tools and softwares you claim are useful to do what Fomenko does then why are you not doing it yourself already? And how can you analyse the Lutheran Chronograph if you haven't finished to read Fomenko yet? And finally how do you know this Lutheran Chronograph is suspicious if you haven't analysed it yet?
 
Last edited:
Silveryou said:
If you want to be trusted do your job instead of pointing at non-existing tools on the web or at least provide those tools yourself.
Click to expand...
I didn't link to any because I haven't used them and therefore cannot vouch for a specific one. That doesn't mean they are "non-existing", as you assert. Anyone with the ability to use a search engine can find a plethora of them and download and use them.

Here, I just found lists of many by doing a simple search:
Silveryou said:
And finally how do you know this Lutheran Chronograph is suspicious if you haven't analysed it yet?
Click to expand...
I will again quote from Fomenko's site:
Translation was made by bishop of Ryazan Gavril Buzhinskiy from the lost now original.
Click to expand...
What was the original called, if it existed? Who was the author?
 
Awarewolf, silveryou is right. When it comes to Fomenkos chronology it has to be read before discussion. That is not shutting down discussion it is sound advice.
I tried reading it in 2018 but got nowhere as I glaze over when it comes to number workings and investigations., always have since childhood. So I read the comments and articles put out by people who have read it, least those that pertain to whatever I am looking into at the time.

If your brain is numerically wired you could get through it and it would be of benefit to you as well as being time well spent.

Silveryou. As you have been reading Fomenko for longer than I attended school could you provide a couple of examples of things that his chronology made sensible and a couple that it made non sensical?

Best form of question I can come up with at this hour!
 
Last edited:
jd755 said:
Silveryou. As you have been reading Fomenko for longer than I attended school could you provide a couple of examples of things that his chronology made sensible and a couple that it made non sensical?
Click to expand...
I'll give you one for each because it would be very time consuming. Obviously this is very subjective and I'll tell you why later.

When it comes to what made immediately sense to me right from the start is that Fomenko points out the extraordinary similarity between the "Crusaders period" and the first century AD in our common historical narrative. In particular how the crusaders in their own time thought they were going to Jerusalem to avenge Christ's death. At the same time in the middle ages they constantly talked of the Jewish-Roman wars. So for me the parallel is clear that the two periods were one and the same.

According to Fomenko this is not definitive though, since he points out that it's just a parallelism which must be brought forward in time.
So I'll give you basically the same example as the non sensical part (to me), since Fomenko believes the entire history of the crusades to be later and most importantly geographically elsewhere. In my opinion he "compressed" his own new timeline in order to create a parallel between western/mediterranean history and russian/tartar history. Once the parallel is done he claims the western/mediterranean history to be part of russian history, leaving an empty shell behind.

The reason why it's all subjective though is mainly due to the very nature of his work, which is that of a chronologist more than a historian. Therefore a common person like me who has no clue as to how analyse books from a statistical point of view can disagree with the interpretation of the raw chronological data he has established but can hardly go and say his very analysis is wrong.
Having statistical tools and programs is not enough if you cannot use them and you can't do it if you don't apply the methods he has described in his books or maybe even some others they haven't come up with.
To understand it better in regards to this Lutheran Chronograph or any other book they use, it is important to say that it doesn't matter where the book comes from and even what's written in it, because they don't actually read the book as we do but they analyse it froma statistiacl point of view.

An example. You write:
Awarewolf, silveryou is right. When it comes to Fomenkos chronology it has to be read before discussion. That is not shutting down discussion it is sound advice.
Click to expand...
There's no need to explain what you mean with this sentence, but from a statistical point of view Fomenko would count how many times you use the word "it", which is 3. And then proceed analysing other aspects that he describes in his books.
Then he takes another first sentence of another post. If that other sentence contains 3 "it" plus the other things he discovered by examining the first sentence, he will conclude the two sentences are somewhat "dependant" (can't remember now the specific word he uses).
If he finds out a string of "dependant" sentences one after the other he will then say that there's a statistical chance (expressed through a per cent %) that two posts are really one and the same, aside of the content they provide.

It's about the quantitative structure, not the qualitative content.

And this is why criticizing Fomenko on the basis of the sources he uses is wrong, unless one can prove through his own statistical analysis that the people who wrote, for example, the Lutheran Chronicle, did actually wrote it counting all the "it" and "and" plus all the other quantitative things Fomenko takes into consideration.

So the common shill would transform your previous sentence like this:
Silveryou, awarewolf is right. When it comes to Fomenkos chronology it has to be read before discussion. That is not shutting down discussion it is sound advice.
Click to expand...
This is a very simple case obvioulsy but Fomenko would analyse the sentence and find out it's 99% similar to the other and therefore related, "dependant". But the sentence can be modified further:
Silveryou, awarewolf is right. When it goes to jd755s post it has to be read before talking. That is not keeping up discussion it is sound good.
Click to expand...
And then again:
That is not keeping up discussion it is sound good. When it goes to jd755s post it has to be read before talking. Silveryou, awarewolf is right.
Click to expand...
Even further:
Discussion it is sound good, that is if you keep it up. When it goes to jd755s, he has to talk before reading your post. Silveryou, awarewolf is wrong.
Click to expand...
And so on. You will pardon me if it makes sometime little sense in English but I'm sure you got the point.

You can detect this shit only through statistical tools and the necessary know-how, IMO!
Claiming they were doing this shit on purpose with the Lutheran Chronograph back in the XVII century doesn't make sense unless you prove it. And to do so you must be at least at the same level of Fomenko in terms of know-how.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Similar articles
Article starter Title Section Replies Date
KorbenDallas Chronology: how old is Odessa and what's its name? General Chronology 20
KorbenDallas Chronology: how old is America? General Chronology 41
KorbenDallas London: Chronology of Events published in 1686 General Chronology 3
KorbenDallas Pompeiigate Scandal: Chronology Issues Pompeii 15

Similar articles

Back
Top