Zoon Politokon’s What is the New Chronology of History Fomenko

On November 24th, 2018, I was a guest on Zoon Politikon’s YouTube channel. Holly and I spoke about New Chronology. Today is Thursday, June 11th, 2020, and I am doing an official article response to my appearance there. The video has a runtime of 51 minutes and 36 seconds.

Comment on this article with anything you think of relating to content in this video.

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

c.1:30 – I say I heard about it and started reading the books around 2 years ago. Which would be around late 2016. I think this is about right. Looking back on it the “stage” between 2016-2018 was mostly just casual reading of it, and compared to how deep I’ve gone into it now it seems almost like nothing. I say it was about a year after hearing about it and doing some reading that I wanted to seriously check its validity. Part of this was due to the fact that I originally had figured other people already looked into this and would have validated/invalidated it, given that Fomenko’s New Chronology started in the 1970’s. I wasn’t satisfied with the validations/invalidations and felt that a more critical and comprehensive approach was going to be needed to satisfy my desire to weed out what parts of Fomenko’s New Chronology had merit and which parts didn’t. I still feel this way today, writing in 2020. It seems to me that the overwhelming majority of the people who would be qualified to complete a comprehensive analysis of it are disinterested/can’t be bothered about it.

c.2:08 – I say the New Chronology is an historical theory. It’s really more of an interdisciplinary theory.

c.2:35 – I start out on Fomenko’s 1993 publication, but his publications do go back to at least 1980.

c.5:00 – I say that the conclusions are really interesting, but what might be even more interesting is how he got to them. I’m still waiting on any mathematician to go in and show what’s right and what’s wrong. Looking back on it, I think maybe why I focused on the conclusions is because they were easier to understand. I’ve read both of those volumes cover to cover now a couple times and I do understand the reasoning behind the conclusions more comprehensively than prior to filming this, but I still feel as though there is more for me to learn in order to have a fully comprehensive understanding.

Whether Fomenko arrived at his conclusions and then created ways to lead a person to them or if he developed his methods and then generated the conclusions is still yet to be determined, in my opinion.

c.6:41 – I bring up the Wikipedia article. I never did complete a full rewrite of it, but I did at one point go and try to change the page to be more accurate with the information and it was immediately reversed to the original. Also I didn’t know how to pronounce “pseudo-” at this point in my life. I now know how to say it.

c.11:00 – I reference this book. I can’t remember if I’ve located it for free online yet or not. If I do run across it, I’ll try and remember to link it here.

c.16:30 – The reason I suggest How It Was In Reality for starters is because the large majority of the claims in their are the conclusions and have citations to the main works.

Note: A list of people who question/ed history.

c.26:55 – I say 400-500 pages is “so much” to get familiar with. I’m laughing now because looking back on it, 400-500 pages is barely anything compared to the tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of pages I’ve read over the past 4 years.

@46:00 – It could be a man but it is a very feminine man compared to some other depictions that show him with a full long beard.

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

Buy Ctruth t-shirts, hoodies, and more at:

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

Gain access to exclusive Ctruth activities, benefits, and content @

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

Support Ctruth directly by donating @

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~