Truth Wanted’s Human History is Only a Thousand Years Old

On October 9th, 2019, Truth Wanted’s YouTube channel posted a video of when I called in to ask them about Fomenko’s New Chronology. Today is Saturday, August 22nd, 2020, and I am doing an official article response to my appearance there. The video has a runtime of 12 minutes and 6 seconds.

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

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

I start out by giving a really based explanation of my past and what Fomenko’s New Chronology is. Looking back on it, my delivery could have been articulated way better than it was.

@c.1:50 – Dan asks two great questions. “How do we get to where it’s only a thousand years old? Where does that number come from?” I respond by mentioning the methods and then explaining my findings on the development of world historical studies. I explain how we get to it decently, but to explain it concisely here: we get to only a thousand years old based on the elimination of the phantom eras which were discovered using the methods developed by Fomenko. The phantom eras artificially stretched the authentic chronology to be longer than what it really was, and based on the elimination of these fictitious eras, we are looking at about 1000 years of human civilization.

@c.3:17 – Dave expresses confusion due to the fact that we have a calendar which is 2000 years old. I didn’t think of it right there on the call, but even on the traditional chronology, that calendar is only around 1500 years old. Where its creation falls in the New Chronology is still debatable.

@c.3:50 – Dave says AD means After Divinity. He caught a lot of flack in the comment section on the YouTube video for that, but its somewhat of a common misconception. To clear it up, AD mean Anno Domini, and stands to mark the year of the birth of Christ.

@c.4:20 – Dan raises another good question, this time about how radiocarbon dating fits into Fomenko’s New Chronology. I first address Dave’s comment on the calendar and forget to mention the thing I mentioned above in this article, about the Anno Domini calendar being created in the 500’s. Also I could have mentioned the Julian calendar supposedly established in the 1st century BC by Julius Caesar.

@5:44 – After I failed to respond to the first radiometric dating question, Dan brings the conversation back to it again by asking, “Is this kind of theory taking into account these other methods on why they would produce other kinds of dates?” I still think I responded decently. My response was somewhat ignored and Dan brought up other forms of radiometric dating that are based on elemental half lifes. He says they are chemistry, which I originally thought too, but I do think now that radiometric dating is more in the ballpark of physics than chemistry, and that you’d want to talk to a physicist about it instead of a chemist. I haven’t made any serious efforts to locate an expert to speak with about this, but I have made some efforts, all of which were unsuccessful. If you know of anyone who’s an expert in this area, comment here or contact me somehow to let me know about them.

@9:06 – Dan says he wishes he had more information on the theory and that it’s something he’d have to look into more.

@c.11:00 – Dan brings up anthropology, “human-like” groups of people, cave paintings, tools, remnants of graves. “Does this particular theory that you know of take account for all these even kind of ancient history stuff or are we just talking about modern human civilization?”

Overall I really enjoyed the discussion. I think Dan had great input and questions. Dave was honest about it being a bit over his head, which I appreciated.

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

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

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