I was a guest of Aeon Byte Gnostic Radio on November 20th, 2020. This article is my review of my appearance on the show. In this article, I just make some minor comments and provide more information about what I was talking about.
@10:10 – I hadn’t written out my precise history of my interest in history when I was a guest on this show. After the show, I wrote an article titled My Background in History to start mapping out the history of my interest in history.
@c.16:40 – I said I thought I had come across Fomenko’s New Chronology (FNC) at the age of like 20. Then I commented on how I would benefit from writing an official article that lays out my background in history (and I did, linked above). After thinking about it, if I had started looking into FNC when I was 20, it was in the later part of that year. I for sure had begun looking into it when I was 21. I said early 20’s is when I started reading all the books which is true, but more specifically I was 21.
@c.17:15 – The emails I sent were sent in the Spring of 2019 when I was 23. The professor who said FNC is “patently absurd” was the Department of History’s Visiting Assistant Professor at a college in my geographical area.
@c.21:50 – Here’s the History of Fomenko’s New Chronology.
@c.24:42 – Here’s the article for the Five Capitals of Fomenko’s New Chronology.
@c.26:00 – Here’s my article that crunches all of Fomenko’s horoscopes into one place, New Chronology Zodiacs. I realize now I didn’t really have to explain timekeeping and the eclipses. But the eclipses are important to Fomenko’s New Chronology too. The horoscopes I think are what Miguel was more-so asking about. I finally got around to explaining the horoscopes around 31:00. The main point of them in FNC is that they fit better in the past 1200 years than they do being spread out over the traditional timeline.
@c.29:00 – Fomenko was inspired to look at the eclipses by of R. R. Newton’s 1972 paper.
@c.34:46 – We were talking about Atlantis and the Atlantic ocean and it got me thinking later about the etymology of the word Atlantic. I think I remember looking into it awhile back but I might write an article about it in the future.
@c39:10 – MoonDog brought up Saint Cyril. I don’t have sources on him yet but I might get around to focusing on him in the future. I just wanted to note that here so I’m less likely to forget.
@c.47:47 – Where Julius Caesar fits into all of this is brought up. Here are some links on Julius Caesar in FNC:
Part 5.2 – http://chronologia.org/en/en_history/05.html
Page 642 – http://chronologia.org/en/seven/4N19-EN.pdf
Part 51 – http://chronologia.org/en/car_slav/czar02_50.html
@c.48:15 – The person I was thinking of was James Stevens Valliant on MythVision Podcast.
@c.51:53 – I was showing Fomenko’s map that shows the populating of the world and realized it isn’t super clear on when the America’s were populated. I think I know where to look for more information on that though so I’m making this note as a reminder to go back and figure that out.
@c.55:15 – I realize now that Vance was asking about local records and how they are included in the historical analysis. For Egypt, mostly the sources seem to me to be archeological sources that we use to fill in the narratives for the different ages, which were established by Manetho (according to tradition). Recently some papyri have been used but Manetho is still the main source to my understanding.
As far as how Fomenko deals with local sources, he subjects them to his textual analysis and then works with the results to see how they fit in with the rest of his findings.
@1:00:00 – Fomenko deals with archeology by accepting that things have been dug up. How these dug up items are interpreted depends on the historical frame in which you’re using to make sense of them. Accordingly, Fomenko interprets them within the historical frame which he built upon his foundational textual and astronomical findings.
@1:06:06 – “I cannot at all agree with the hypothesis of Morozov, according to which most literary works of antiquity are fabrications of the Apocrypha of the Renaissance, which would mean that what we know today as ancient history is actually the result of premeditated falsification. … My standpoint is different, namely that, due to the results of the application of the new dating methods, almost all surviving ancient documents (of antiquity or the Middle Ages) are authentic and written for the purpose of perpetuating real events rather than leading future historians astray.”
– A. T. Fomenko, Page 196 ~ http://chronologia.org/en/kw1.pdf
The above quote leads me to believe that Fomenko thinks it was just later historians who botched what really happened in the past.
@c.1:14:00 – The reason I brought up Vance’s lack of sources was just to show how little it takes for someone to believe something about history. I liked talking to Vance and Miguel so I hope that didn’t come off the wrong way. It was just the most recent example of a somewhat shallow belief. Also I’ll note that being unable to think of a source name does not mean that a person hasn’t explored a topic more in depth than a surface level understanding. Sometimes the memory is faulty. The point I was going for though showing shallow belief and how those beliefs wiggle their way into our lives. Without thinking more about why we think a thing, I’m not sure the belief can be considered to be beyond shallow. Even typing this out has me thinking more about what makes a belief shallow and what makes a belief deep. I might loop back to this in the future if people keep reminding me to.
@c.1:19:45 – If you want to help me keep going, pledge on Patreon, buy merch from the Ctruth Store, or donate through the PayPal, Venmo, or Cashapp links below. If you can’t help financially, you can help by watching and commenting on the Ctruth YouTube videos or by sharing my content on social media.
@c.1:20:30 – I said half the world is Christian. Upon looking at some statistics, I think it’s more accurate to say that a third of the world is Christian. It could be said that the USA is over 50% Christian, but I was wrong at this part in the show.
@c.1:21:12 – Vance asked me how I deal with getting a history degree. I say I kind of treat it as if the whole class is studying Harry Potter or some other fiction work. That wasn’t to say I think all of history is fake and that what we are learning is fiction but to say that if most of history is fiction, then that’s what I see it as being like. The issue is determining what really happened in the past and the history class I took in the Fall 2020 semester did not focus on how determining such a thing is done. It was mostly just parroting information without understanding exactly how that information came into fruition.
@c.1:24:12 – I said we were basically instructed to go find illegally uploaded material for one of our assignments. I said it like this because we weren’t explicitly told to go find illegally uploaded material, but we were told to go find documentaries from PBS, History Channel, Discover Channel etc. and to use those. There were more historical documentaries from those three channels uploaded not by the companies themselves than what was available for free on their websites or YouTube channels. In retrospect, this is the one criticism out of many which I’ve made which could be considered moderately baseless. However, I still think it is incredibly odd that we were told not to use any types of lectures. Possibly it’s because lectures are typically considered boring and documentaries considered fun. I’d be interested in hearing why this was the case. I do apologize for not being more precise about all of that.
@1:29:13 – Admittedly, I’m a complete idiot sometimes. I forgot that Francis Bacon (1561-1626) is credited with establishing the scientific method and is sometimes known as the father of empiricism. I mentioned I had a biography on him up on my website (which is here) but I’ll need to go in and buff it up more. It doesn’t look like I touched that biography since I posted it mid-2019. As far as his historical contributions, I’m not aware of him doing anything major.
@c.1:30:52 – Here’s the link to Fomenko’s book on Shakespeare.
@c.1:31:32 – This quote about speaking and learning you know nothing. I think I read it in the Making of the Humanities series, volume 1. I’ll have to go check for that to get it verbatim.
@c.1:33:01 – My two articles on Tartaria: Tartaria Facebook Pages and Groups and Tartaria YouTube Channels and Early Videos. If you think there’s merit to some of these Tartaria arguments, comment below or contact me with your best ones and I’ll give them a fresh view. Stuff that wasn’t convincing to me in the past might be convincing to me now.
Also around the last time stamp, I said I thought it was 2016, but it was August 2018, which makes more sense because that’s when the Facebook groups started showing up. There was some discussion in 2016, but it did get more popular in 2018.
@1:38:04, I recognize criticizing the source isn’t the same as criticizing the content, but the content was not sourced much at all. What I’m criticizing is the way the information had been gathered and presented, not the content. Providing sources for your material is important because it’s easy to attach a short citation as to where you got the information and it saves a ton of time for anyone hoping to investigate the validity of your information.
@1:40:20 – Here are some of my articles on the mudflood stuff: Mudfloods (<- This article has the video where I respond to the 1 hour long disinfo video about me), Mudflood Facebook Groups and Pages, Mudflood Youtube Channels and Videos.
@1:45:45 – My goal is to be able to do this as my career and to be able afford my expenses. I can’t do it without the support of people who want to see me continue learning and sharing. If you’re one of those people, I’d love to see you get more involved.
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
Buy Ctruth t-shirts, hoodies, and more at:
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
Gain access to exclusive Ctruth activities, benefits, and content @
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
Support Ctruth directly by donating @
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~