New Testament Uncials

This article contains a list of the surviving uncials of the New Testament. The list is in chronological order with the uncials which have been given the earliest dates at the top of the list and the uncials given the latest dates at the bottom of the list. They are listed by their number, then name, then date, then (if applicable) earliest provenance. The provenances of which I’m lesser sure about have (?) directly after them. This list currently only has the first 45 uncials listed.

1751 – Johann Jakob Wettstein knows of 23 New Testament uncial codices.

By 1859 – Constantin von Tischendorf knows of 64 uncials.

1909 – Caspar Rene Gregory enumerates 161 uncials.

By 1963 – Kurt Aland enumerates 250 uncials in his Kurzgefasste Liste. In 1989, he enumerates 299.

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

There are 2 which date to the 4th century, 7 which date to the 5th, 11 date to the 6th, 2 to the 8th, 19 to the 9th, 1 to the 9th/10th, and 3 to the 10th.

When the following uncials have been dated to being created:
4th c. – 2
5th c. – 7
6th c. – 11
8th c. – 2
9th c. – 19
9th/10th cc. – 1
10th c. – 3

When they surface out of obscurity:
15th c. – 2
16th c. – 5
17th c. – 10
18th c. – 11
19th c. – 17

1 – Sinaiticus, 4th c., 1844

3 – Vaticanus, 4th c., 1475

2 – Alexandrinus, 5th c., 17th c.(?)

4 – Ephraemi Rescriptus, 5th c., 17th c.(?)

5 – Bezae, 5th c., 1545(?)

16 – Freerianus, 5th c., late 19th c.(?)

26 – Guelferbytanus B, 5th c. 18th c.

29 – Borgianus, 5th c., 18th c.(?)

32 – Washingtonianus, 5th c., 19th c.(?)

6 – Claromontanus, 6th c., 16th c.(?)

8 – Laudianus, 6th c., 17th c.(?)

15 – Coislinianus, 6th c., 16th c.(?)

22 – Petropolitanus Purp., 6th c., 18th c.(?)

23 – Sinopensis, 6th c., 1899

24 – Guelferbytanus A, 6th c., 1689

27 – Nitriensis, 6th c., 1847

35 – Dublinensis, 6th c., 1787

40 – Zacynthius, 6th c., 1820

42 – Rossanensis, 6th c., 1879

43 – Beratinus, 6th c., 19th c.(?)

7 – Basilensis, 8th c., 1559(?)

19 – Regius, 8th c., 16th c.

9 – Boreelianus, 9th c., 17th c.(?)

10 – Augiensis, 9th c., 1718

11 – Seidelianus I, 9th c., 18th c.

12 – Boernerianus, 9th c., 1670

13 – Seidelianus II, 9th c., 17th c.

14 – Mutinensis, 9th c., 19th c.(?)

17 – Cyprius, 9th c., 1673

18 – Mosquensis, 9th c., 1655

20 – Angelicus, 9th c., 18th c.(?)

21 – Campianus, 9th c., 1707

25 – Porphyrianus, 9th c., 1862

30 – Nanianus, 9th c., 15th c.

31 – Mosquensis II, 9th c., 1655

34 – Macedoniensis, 9th c., 19th c.(?)

37 – Sangallensis, 9th c., 18th c.(?)

38 – Coridethianus, 9th c., 1853

39 – Tischendorfianus III, 9th c., 1853

41 – Petropolitanus, 9th c., 1859

45 – Athous Dionysiou, 9th c., 19th c.(?)

44 – Athous Lavrensis, 9th/10th cc., 1886

33 – Monacensis, 10th c., 1757

36 – Tischendorfianus IV, 10th c., 1850s

28 – Vaticanus 354, 10th c. (specifically 949 AD), 18th c.(?)

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

List ordered by earliest provenance:

3 – Vaticanus, 4th c., 1475

30 – Nanianus, 9th c., 15th c.

5 – Bezae, 5th c., 1545(?)

7 – Basilensis, 8th c., 1559(?)

6 – Claromontanus, 6th c., 16th c.(?)

15 – Coislinianus, 6th c., 16th c.(?)

19 – Regius, 8th c., 16th c.

18 – Mosquensis, 9th c., 1655

31 – Mosquensis II, 9th c., 1655

12 – Boernerianus, 9th c., 1670

17 – Cyprius, 9th c., 1673

24 – Guelferbytanus A, 6th c., 1689

2 – Alexandrinus, 5th c., 17th c.(?)

9 – Boreelianus, 9th c., 17th c.(?)

4 – Ephraemi Rescriptus, 5th c., 17th c.(?)

8 – Laudianus, 6th c., 17th c.(?)

13 – Seidelianus II, 9th c., 17th c.

21 – Campianus, 9th c., 1707

10 – Augiensis, 9th c., 1718

33 – Monacensis, 10th c., 1757

35 – Dublinensis, 6th c., 1787

20 – Angelicus, 9th c., 18th c.(?)

29 – Borgianus, 5th c., 18th c.(?)

26 – Guelferbytanus B, 5th c. 18th c.

22 – Petropolitanus Purp., 6th c., 18th c.(?)

37 – Sangallensis, 9th c., 18th c.(?)

11 – Seidelianus I, 9th c., 18th c.

28 – Vaticanus 354, 10th c. (specifically 949 AD), 18th c.(?)

40 – Zacynthius, 6th c., 1820

1 – Sinaiticus, 4th c., 1844

27 – Nitriensis, 6th c., 1847

36 – Tischendorfianus IV, 10th c., 1850s

38 – Coridethianus, 9th c., 1853

39 – Tischendorfianus III, 9th c., 1853

41 – Petropolitanus, 9th c., 1859

25 – Porphyrianus, 9th c., 1862

42 – Rossanensis, 6th c., 1879

44 – Athous Lavrensis, 9th/10th cc., 1886

23 – Sinopensis, 6th c., 1899

45 – Athous Dionysiou, 9th c., 19th c.(?)

43 – Beratinus, 6th c., 19th c.(?)

16 – Freerianus, 5th c., late 19th c.(?)

14 – Mutinensis, 9th c., 19th c.(?)

34 – Macedoniensis, 9th c., 19th c.(?)

32 – Washingtonianus, 5th c., 19th c.(?)

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

References:

[1] – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_uncials

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

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

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

Finding Jesus in the Bible

This article contains a list of links about the Biblical books that mention Jesus.

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

Matthew

Mark

Luke

John

Acts

Revelation

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

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

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

World History

Welcome to the World History branch of the Ctruth website.
Check out The History of History; Basics to increase your understanding of the creation of world history.

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

Below is where you will find numerous articles pertaining to world history.

Categories;
Area Studies, Architecture, Biographies, Timelines, Manuscripts, Mudfloods, Google Maps

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

Ctruth Patrons

This article contains the public list of Ctruth Patrons. Some Patrons may not be included if they have opted out of being included here.

Patreon is a membership platform based in the United States that provides business tools for creators to run a subscription content service. Ctruth is a content creator on Patreon and offers a plethora of benefits for its various tiers of patrons.

All Ctruth Patrons get to choose a topic for a special article when they become a Ctruth Patron. To see what articles have been chosen by Ctruth Patrons, check here. On occasion, there are also special events that grant Ctruth Patrons the same benefit.

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

Being a patron for Ctruth is wonderful. In being a patron, you are given exclusive content and benefits while also supporting Ctruth. Your interactions and pledges are cherished to the fullest extent by Ctruth, and are used to keep the production of Ctruth content going.

Ctruth gives a sincere thanks to all of its Patrons.

The current Ctruth Patrons are:

1 – Seppo Pakonen
2 – Faith
3 – Carleene
4 – Mario
5 – Heretic
6 – S. B. Alger
7 – Anon
8 -Anon
9 – Anon
10 – Dave G
11 – Anon

~~~~~

Thank you to the first 5 people to become Ctruth patrons.
You will forever be a special part of Ctruth history.

1 – Seppo Pakonen
2 – Faith
3 – Molly
4 – Carleene
5 – Mario

~~~~~

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

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

My Response to Philipp Druzhinin, The Mud Flood Researcher

This is part two (the main part) of my official response to my interactions with Philipp Druzhinin, and especially the video which had a segment about an hour long which was specifically about me. The video about me was published on YouTube on July 2, 2020 under the title “Fomenko’s Historical Hell’s Kitchen / Is He an AGENT? You decide”. I refer to Philipp as PD in this article. His channel had around 21,400 subscribers when I last checked on July 3, 2020.

The reason why I’ve decided to make this response is because PD tells a lot of lies about me in order to convince people that I am a “troll”. I’m not a troll and I’m making this response to clear up any misconceptions about who I am and what I do.

I have 66 different timestamps listed below from his hour long video. That’s an average of more than one timestamp per minute that I respond to from his video. Some of the quote from PD don’t include his “uhh”s or “uhm”s and when I read them I try to keep a neutral tone. My choice to record with a neutral tone isn’t to try and misrepresent him in a negative way, but is to emphasize the content of his speech instead of the way in which he delivered it.

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

The runtime for the video is 2:14:58. The timestamps either have quotes from PD and then are followed by my response, or they are my commentary about that part of his video.

He begins by explaining how the video is structured, and how the first 1:02:53 is all about me.

@0:18 – “If you want to watch exactly about Fomenko nothing else, just uh find the timecode for Fomenko and start watching it from that part because the starting part is not about Fomenko, it’s about the guy who made me make this video.”

Response: I didn’t make him do anything. He did this of his own accord. As can be seen in part one to my response, I would’ve been content with him just responding in the comments on the post that we were talking on. He decided to make the video instead of responding to me in the comments.

@0:39 – “So, if you really want to know the case and how it all happened and all these fallacies of that guy and who he is, you can check the whole video, but it’s rather big then.”

@1:32 – “And, don’t get your shit boiled if you are a follower of Fomenko, just, you know, make a constructive critic comments and write me in the comments what you want to know more of or whatever and maybe I’ll continue that research on Fomenko for you to be disappointed even more, so see you later.”

Response: I did leave a number of comments but he blocked me from his channel so that nobody can see them. So instead of communicating my thoughts in the comments on his video, I’m doing it here in this response. I’m also pretty sure that he doesn’t identify any fallacies from me. He asserts that I’ve made a fallacy, but the content doesn’t support his assertions.

@3:44 – “But there was one guy that posted a video on mud flood I think, I don’t see any other reason I would be watching that guy and his name was Stephen. And he made a video on I think Tartaria or Mud Flood, I don’t know, I could not find that video right now because probably he has deleted that channel, that previous channel he had before, oh I don’t know. … Maybe I just suck at searching. But actually not… I just couldn’t find it.”

Response: Whoever he’s thinking of, it isn’t me, even though he says it is. I have never made a video on Tartaria or Mud Flood. I have never deleted a channel either, including one that had a video I made on Tartaria or Mud Flood, because I’ve never made such a video.

@5:15 – “And so he jumped into my chat a couple times probably and tried to like, you know, ask question again, like “Why is Fomenko a government agent? Why is Fomenko a government agent?” so that was the reason I made that video before. So, he acted like a troll is what I think and my definition of trolling isn’t much different from what you can Google. And well we will fall back to this definition a little bit later although that question is not answered for him, he doesn’t know what troll is and he probably doesn’t have any manners and because he’s acting like a troll. Asking the same questions, provoking the emotional answers, and just poking with this continuous numerous questions about the same stuff.”

Response: Again, the “probably” comment comes up. I only ever messaged him in the messenger chat one time, which he read and ignored. He repeats the same question twice in his video as if that was a representation of me. I don’t speak like that, but as you will see, PD does. My one message that I sent to his chat wasn’t “Why is Fomenko a government agent?”, it was “Do you have any information on Fomenko being a government agent?”.

Also covered in part one of my response is the real reason that PD decided to make the first video. The real reason wasn’t because I messaged him in chat, but because I “pissed him off big time”, by asking him questions. And not even the same question over and over again, there were multiple questions all of which I think PD did his best to dodge answering. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, my main purpose in asking questions to PD was to gain information about Fomenko being a government agent. There was no intent to provoke an emotional response, no hidden intent or whatever else it is that trolls do. I simply wanted information on PD’s evidence for Fomenko being an agent. I would have preferred a completely emotionless response from PD if it meant he would have answered my question. I didn’t intend to “piss him off big time”. I just wanted information, not emotion.

He says I don’t know what a troll is, but I am somewhat familiar with what trolling is, at least familiar enough to know that I’m definitely not one.

The reason I asked the same question on different occasions is because he had not responded to them the first time I asked them. The YouTube one I can understand not responding to because maybe he didn’t see the notification or maybe he didn’t get a notification, but messenger tells you when someone reads your message, and he read that message but chose not to respond to it. The quote ends with redundancy where he says the thing about the questions twice. To repeat, I never made comments with the intent to provoke an emotional response. All my comments were aimed at getting PD to respond with appropriate answers. The evidence here for me being a troll boils down to asking questions, given that his idea of my intent is wrong. Is asking questions trolling? I think it can be in some cases, but in my case it was not.

@6:23 – “Why did that happen? Because well I banned him from the channel so he could not comment me anymore like a year and a half past maybe a little bit more, less, I don’t really care. Couple of years let’s say for sure.”

Response: He banned me from his channel on February 1st, 2019. That is about one year and five months ago. He then lies and says “couple of years let’s say for sure”. For sure a couple of years? It has not even been a year and a half and for sure was not a couple of years ago. I think this highlights how low PD set his bar for reporting accurate information.

@7:00 – “…he made a bunch of comments bashing me.”

Response: I’m curious as to which comments he’s referring to and if they had any merit. If I made comments that were bashing him that had no basis in reality, I apologize about that. I do not want to bash people due to misunderstandings or made up facts. However, if “bashing” means “critiquing”, as he invites people to do in the introduction to this video of his, then I’m not sure if I’d be sorry about them. I can admit I haven’t always said the perfect things, so if PD is inclined, or anyone who wants to help him locate the exact comments I made, I’m willing to review them and see exactly what he’s talking about. Possibly after I review the bashing comments, I’ll give him an apology for not choosing my words more wisely.

@7:22 – “…and so he probably sneaked into my group because I also banned him on Facebook also because he was pretty active I think otherwise I wouldn’t be banning anyone and he was trolling me also. Well he sneaked into my group Mud Flood Advanced Research group and posted this link at June 10. So although he’s probably a member of the group a little bit maybe er I don’t know what actually he is. A member from what time? Well, whatever. So that was his actually first post in the group since when he joined it so he never answered ehh participated in any discussion in this group and here we go. He comes up with a post, link, that’s actually not a post, just a link to his own website Ctruth.today. And also you know made this little comment.”

Response: I did not sneak into his group, and I didn’t join it simply because he banned me on Facebook. Later in this video (@34:29) he finally figures out how to check how long I’ve been in the group and shows that I had been a member of that group since May 2017. Due to the fact that I didn’t “sneak” into his group, it is impossible that the reason for sneaking into it would be because he blocked me on Facebook. This is just another lie about me told by PD.

An additional lie from PD is that I never participated in any discussion in the group. I commented on a post in that group that he made on November 19, 2018, and the comment is still there. PD either didn’t search his group for my activity or he did, saw my activity, and decided to lie to his viewers anyways. I commented on another post of his from September 28, 2018. I made a post in the group myself on December 5th, 2018. I made another post on December 24, 2018. My final post in there was on June 10th, and it prompted him to make the video of which I’m responding to.

My final comment about the quote above is that the post of mine from June 10th had text and a link and is indeed a post. PD lied and said “that’s actually not a post, just a link”. It is a post, and it’s not just a link, it includes text that isn’t even part of the link.

@8:54 – “That was the quote from Anatoly Fomenko. uhh I don’t know, I didn’t read that book but he is like quoting the book Exhibition Jerusalem 2020. Probably the new one. Uhm, the only one in this year. uh finally, he’s he stopped being a crazy printer and uh printing books like a, I don’t know, like a robot. So, whatever.”

Response: PD lied to his audience again by saying it’s the only book Fomenko has printed this year and then ridicules Fomenko about it. It’s true that Exhibition Jerusalem is Fomenko’s newest book, but Fomenko also published a book earlier in 2020 titled The Nightingale the Robber, Buyan Island and Crimea.

@9:39 – “The title is Fomenko’s Mudflood and New Chronology. So that is actually not Fomenko post but that’s Stephen’s post. And he named it Fomenko’s Mudflood and New Chronology. Although in the quote you won’t find the mud flood itself…”

Response: I mention this in part one of my response but the reason why I titled it Fomenko’s Mudflood and New Chronology is because at the time that I wrote it I thought mud flood and mudflow/slide were more or less synonymous. I’m open to changing the title, but first I’d like a clear definition of what PD thinks the mudflood is. I think he’s claimed being the inventor of the term mudflood, so once he provides the definition I can change the article. I’m easy to contact, but I think it’d be useful if he added his definition to his YouTube channel descriptions, or at least to the description of the Facebook group in which we were talking.

@10:13 – “So if we jump to the thread we can find out that I made a comment like four days ago, although it’s like maybe. Today’s 26 of June and the post was made on June 10, so nobody was actually commenting except me so I was the first one who commented although the post had some likes and a wow like by one guy. Well I posted this is possibly just an example of mud – I figured that was the same guy that was trolling me before but, you know, I didn’t ban him right away. I figured maybe I can change his mind. You know, I just catch him in his false narrative that he’s promoting. “I heard rumors that Fomenko avoids discussion of mudflood”, and here we go, he is not avoiding, but actually he is because this is not about the mud flood, this is about the mudflow of 17th century.”

Response: I wasn’t trolling him before, I wasn’t trolling him on that post, and I’m not trolling him now. However, now that I know that PD doesn’t consider mudslides/flows to be synonymous with mud flood, I plan on updating that article to explain why I named it what I did and why the original name isn’t as accurate as I had thought. When I made my first article on mud flood, I didn’t know PD was the person who coined the term. I only found that out recently. And he might not have even been the first person to coin the term, but I think he is the first person to use it for the specific thing he’s talking about, which is still somewhat obscure to me. I think he’s narrowed it down to specifically a 19th century mud floods and doesn’t think that there were any mudfloods from any other centuries. But again, if PD could post his precise, clear definition, I think that would help everyone understand more quickly and comprehensively exactly what he’s researching.

He then continues after the above quote to read the comments which I have saved here.

@12:39 – “And here we go. Stephen, the kin of Fomenko followers, comes up “Maria, maybe it was in the Americas originally, hmm”. So, trying to, you know, ignore what I said and Maria said “yes, I’m really sorry for getting off topic”. So she read my comment. He didn’t answer me. But he, you know, put a like here, err, I put a like on that comment because, you know, she said “I’m sorry to get off topic but, you know, social media got an opinion so we like I’m sorry look at your posts more(?) I tried to comment sorry”. So ok, *PD reads his comment* “Maria that’s not mine. I would not really made such a false narrative on Fomenko. He never mentioned 19th century mud flood case.” So I’m just, you know, trying to troll – uhh, not troll but, you know, trying to uh *he releases a big sigh*. Trying to argue with the post narrative that he heard rumors that Fomenko avoids discussion of mud flood.” Well he does, he would because he doesn’t mention it anywhere. Well, and here we go, Stephen Sorensen also doesn’t care what I said again and answers again to Maria. *PD then reads my comment that I expand on in part one of this response*. So he’s like trolling me not talking to me but talking to Maria again.”

Response: PD lies again and says that I was trying to ignore his comment. As I mentioned in part one, I wasn’t able to see his comments. I didn’t even know his comment was there and hence I couldn’t have possibly ignored it. As PD said on the quote marked @7:22, “I also banned him on Facebook”, which I think he means to say he blocked me on Facebook, because I’ve never had an account banned from Facebook. When you block someone, they can’t see your comments. I couldn’t see his comments, so I figure he had me blocked at the time.

Then PD mispeaks a couple times. He first says I liked the comment, but realizes it was him who liked the comment and corrects himself. He then says that he’s trying to troll. He realizes what he said and tries to correct himself. It sounds to me like he got frustrated by saying this because he released a big sigh while he thought about what he wanted to say instead. Maybe it was a sigh of frustration for lacking the correct words to say at the time. Was his admission to trolling a Freudian slip? Did PD accidentally admit to his real goal, which in this case would be trolling? I don’t know. I’d like to think he’s trying his best to tell the truth. However, as is noted previously and in the following, he lies often throughout this video. I wouldn’t be surprised if he was trolling and lying about not trolling. But again, I’d like to think PD was doing his best to tell the truth, even if he was way off the mark.

At the end of the above quote, he reads a comment of mine that I made after seeing one of his comments from a different Facebook account. I responded to his third comment, as I hadn’t yet seen his first two comments. I communicated my thoughts to Maria as to let her know about PD’s bias against Fomenko and to not take it too seriously. Looking back on it, I could’ve chosen my words more wisely, but it wasn’t a comment meant to piss him off or provoke an emotional response. It was mainly made to inform her about him, and lesser made to get him to comment his evidence about Fomenko being a government agent.

To repeat, I wasn’t trolling him. I was just informing Maria because I doubted she knew about PD’s past comments on Fomenko. He continues on reading through the comments and I’m not going to include them all here because I already have linked the complete conversation if you want to read that.

@15:26 – He reads my comment where I ask maybe he doesn’t know how to find his own videos. To which he says “So he keeps trolling. That’s what he did two years ago.”

Response: PD is an older guy. I’m not sure exactly how old because I’ve made no effort to find out, but he is an older guy compared to me. I honestly didn’t know if he knew how to locate his own videos. Part of this is due to the comment he made right before where he tells me to go Google his video. If I were him I would’ve just included the link to the video that I had made and was referencing in the comment. I wouldn’t ever tell someone to go to Google to try and find my content. This is why I asked the question. Was the question sassy? Maybe. Was it trolling? Not at all. Additionally, in my experience, older people that I’ve contacted about their research tend to tell me to go to Google to find their content instead of just quick grabbing a link and posting it. I figure maybe they do this because they don’t know how to locate their own material, but they do know that their material was made at some point. Again, it’s just odd to me that any researcher would tell a person who’s interested in their research to go to Google to find it instead of just helping that person out by giving them a link.

Again, PD says I trolled him two years ago. The first time I asked if he could back up his claim about Fomenko was less than a year and a half ago. And ever since I’ve known about PD, I have never trolled him.

@16:04 – I think here he says “That’s your fault” in response to me saying I hadn’t heard about mudflood until like 2017/18. I’m making note of this here because later (@48:38) he shows a graph that shows mudflood gained a significant amount of popularity in the later part of 2018.

@17:04 – He said the group is about the 19th century mudflood. I suggested he update the description to his group to say that that’s what the group is about. Here’s an image of his group’s description after he updated it. The description is exactly the same except for the addition of the all caps “but not Fomenkos research”. The description says the group was created to discuss all advanced alternative theories (later says they talk about history, etc.), which includes New Chronology because it is an alternative theory and an historical topic. Notice how he didn’t take my suggestion though. He still hasn’t included any mention of the 19th century mud flood in his group’s description, even after claiming that that’s what the group is about. He does mention mud flood, but no 19th century descriptor is attached to it. Instead, he updated the group to specifically exclude discussion about Fomenko’s research.

@17:13 – “So here he returns with the same questions.”

Response: The first question I for sure never asked before because it’s about the questions I had asked in my last comment. The second question was a clarifying question about the link to his video. Neither of those had been asked, but that doesn’t stop PD from claiming (and subsequently lying) that they had been asked before.

@17:45 – He narrates my comment with a voice which I never use except for maybe when I was younger and mocking someone else. But as far as this conversation goes, this is a blatant misrepresentation of my tone. Misrepresentations are lies because they distort and pervert the truth. He then comments on my comment about his behavior. I think this part @17:45 is a good example of what I meant by his behavior. He uses a tone to narrate my voice in a way with which I would never speak to him. Also by his behavior I was referring to the first time when he got really upset that I was asking him questions, and also about the continual avoidance of providing evidence to back his claim. In an ideal situation, I’d ask for the evidence and he would provide it. But this situation is less than ideal and I still have not pulled legitimate evidence out of him. I use to think maybe he had a good reason for his belief, but after his one hour stunt against me, I’m starting to wonder what PD’s true motivations are.

@18:00 – “Just watch my ******* videos, that’s what I said. You don’t want to watch them? So why did you talk about it?”

Response: At this point I’m inclined to believe that he is more concerned with getting views and watch time on his videos to make money than he is with engaging in professional and honest research. My next comment said that I had watched the videos, which I did before he even commented the links, and he reads that comment out loud in the video. I figured maybe he had other videos he was telling me to go find on Google about his talks on Fomenko, but I was disappointed when it was just those two. There is a third video of his that I mention in part one where PD again just makes claims without evidence, but he didn’t include that with the other two links. All in all, I’ve seen the videos he linked in that comment, I told him I’ve seen those two videos, I’ve seen more of his videos than just those two, but he still felt compelled to lie to his viewers about me not wanting to watch his videos. Why is this? What reason did he have to do such a thing? Poor memory? Purposeful deception? A lack of belief in my claims to have watched them? I do not know, but this question of “why” can be applied to all the times he’s lied about me. Why is he doing this? Let me know what you think.

@18:22 – “So he like keeps trolling me.”

Response: This quote is in reference to me telling him I’ve seen the videos and don’t think there’s evidence. PD was the person in the video, he was the one to share the links to the videos, and I would imagine that he has a general idea where in the video the evidence is. That’s why I asked for him to provide the timestamp. The timestamp would have allowed both of us to look at a specific point in the video and then discuss it together. But in his video, it’s clear that he sees this as trolling. In his world, me trying to get on the same page and focus on a specific claim is trolling.

I also suggested that he define troll in his next comment too so that I could better understand what he considered trolling, and why he kept calling me one. I also mention that I just want evidence from him, not emotional responses. I communicated what I saw from him, and while it could be considered sassy, being sassy isn’t trolling.

@18:53 – *He releases a big sigh* “So, I made this big one here because, you know, actually *he chuckles to himself* he actually, you know, that was my purpose because I wanted him … to show himself and uhm to look stupid.” *Then he starts to read his “big” comment.*

Response: He states that he made an effort to make me look stupid. Why would he do this in favor over just commenting the evidence to begin with? His big comment has 6 numbers which I think he means to use as evidence. I’ll address them here.

1 – The research was sponsored by the government of Soviet Union. (Citation please?)
2 – Nikolay Levashov claimed Fomenko was an agent. (What was Levashov’s evidence? The map thing? I’d like to see Levahov’s original map placed next to Fomenko’s supposedly edited version of it.)
3 – He wasn’t kicked out of science after being “officially debunked” by the Russian Science Academy. (Why would he be expelled from math for investigating history on the side? He’s a member for his mathematical achievements, not his historical ideas. Does he teach his historical ideas in his math classes? I could see him getting kicked out for that. And possibly could be suspicious if he wasn’t getting kicked out for teaching outside of what he’s employed to teach. I’d like some clarity here.)
4 – Fomenko and Nosovsky printed many books. (How is this evidence of being a government agent?)
5 – Fomenko and Nosovsky were always backed by mainstream media. (How is this evidence of being a government agent? Could it not have been because Fomenko was already known as a genius mathematician and people wanted to hear from him?)
6 – They never mentioned anything on the 19th century. (This is a blatant lie.)

Possibly Levashov had a good reason to claim such a thing. But did Levashov claim such a thing? I asked PD but he told me that source in which Levashov claimed it is now gone. How unfortunate. This means that as of right now, the only reason I have to think that Levashov claimed Fomenko was a government agent is the testimony of PD, which I am highly skeptical of, especially after the video he made about me.

To summarize, the 6 points he gave to support his claim are not evidence. One and two are just more claims by PD which he didn’t include any substantiations for. I don’t think three, four, and five are evidence of Fomenko being an agent either. Six itself is just a blatant lie. PD also comments (another lie) that I’d laugh if I could count the number of books that Fomenko has published. I can count the number of books he’s published and I’m not laughing.

@22:34 – “And, he’s like keeps keeps me trolling guys.” *He then reads my comment in a tone which I wouldn’t use, and didn’t use in the comment, thereby misrepresenting me again* “So he doesn’t even understand what I’m saying. I said that it wasn’t Fomenko’s research, it was the research of Postnikov and he was in the group of Postnikov.”

Response: He says this quote in response to me asking a question for clarification about his previous comment. Originally I had asked if he had any links showing that the Soviet government sponsored his project, which he responded to with no links, but with a comment about Postnikov and a citation to Postnikov’s 1977 book. PD then says I don’t understand him. I think I do understand what he was saying (even though it doesn’t answer the question I had asked). I also think he said I didn’t understand what he was saying because I asked if Postnikov’s work had evidence that the Soviet’s sponsored Fomenko’s research, which PD responds to in his video by saying that it wasn’t even Fomenko’s research, it was Postnikov’s. My original question was about a link or source that showed the Soviet government sponsored his project and from what I can tell, he still hasn’t provided anything to substantiate that.

@23:01 – “Well, in Soviet Union, all the science was sponsored by the government. I know you are not from Russia, but this question is off the target. The Postnikov group was made of several science workers, and yes, all of them were paid by the government.”

Response: Does anyone have a link to where I can read more about this? It sounds interesting and I’d like to learn more. It sounds like PD already has information on this, and that’s why I was asking him for links to learn more.

@23:40 – “Postnikov’s ideas were not actually Postnikov’s. He also stole this concept from Morozov who was performing the same research back in the beginning of the 20th century, 1930’s. And he stole the idea from his masonic brothers. He was a member of Russian masonic lodge.”

Response: Let me get this straight real quick. Fomenko’s research wasn’t actually Fomenko’s, it was Postnikov’s. Postnikov’s research wasn’t actually Postnikov’s, it was Morozov’s. Morozov’s research wasn’t actually Morozov’s, it was Morozov’s Masonic Brothers. If this were true, we’d see Fomenko’s research at least in Morozov’s and Postnikov’s, if not also in the writings of the members the Russian Masonic Lodge. From what I understand, this is not the case. Also, what evidence is there that Morozov took his ideas from Russian masons?

@24:19 – PD accuses Fomenko of plagiarism. “He [Fomenko] quotes the entire ideas and sentences from what Postnikov, from that Postnikov’s 1977 book but doesn’t give any reference, any credit to Postnikov.”

Response: I want PD to prove this (or anyone to prove this) by lining up Postnikov’s work to Fomenko’s and showing the plagiarism. Providing page numbers and book titles will help so that everyone who’s interested can check and see if it is true. Until that happens, it’s just another unsubstantiated claim from PD.

@24:51 – “So he can’t Google. Man, I don’t know. Guy, 25 years old, can’t Google? I don’t know.”

Response: He said that in response to me asking who’s a member of the Russian masonic lodge. At the time I wasn’t sure if he meant Morozov or Postnikov. But looking back on it I do think it’s clear that he meant Morozov. However, I can Google. PD lies to his viewers again by saying I cannot. He provided a link instead of just saying Morozov, which confuses me further because it was one time that I didn’t ask for a link and he gave me one. When I did ask for links previously, he gave me none aside from when he commented the links to the two videos I’d already seen.

From about 25:20 to 30:20 he reads out loud some parts of the Wikipedia page for Morozov.

@30:22 – “And I said like, “everything I tell you’s true bro”. And the more you dig the more you’ll find I liked Fomenko and Nosovsky even more than you but the more I was following them, the further went my research, and I am a specialist not only in criminal research and criminal investigation but also in conspiracy theories. For those who don’t know, I was head of the Economic Crime Department back in the days.”

Response: According to PD’s YouTube channel, he claims that he quit his job as “Head of economics and corruption crimes department” in 2007 after reading about “Parasites”. Is this true? Also I’ll note that the amount in which you like something doesn’t reflect how much you know about it.

@31:10 – “And so, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.”

Response: PD glosses over my response to his claim that everything he tells me is true with 7 “blah”s before skipping to his next comment. Because of this, I’ll include my full comment here:

“Not everything you tell me is true. You tell me I’m a troll, which is blatantly false. You said I started bashing you a couple of years ago and it hasn’t even been a year and a half, so you’re wrong on that too. You said “if I could count” Fomenko’s books I’d “probably laugh”. I can count them, I dont laugh, so you’re wrong on that too. I have a feeling you hate being wrong so I’ll stop there as to not “upset you big time”. I’m just happy that after a year and like 4 months that you have finally gained enough composure to clearly provide some things you think are evidence of Fomenko being a government agent after being asked to do so. Thank you for your time today.”

I said thank you for your time today because I was going to be done with that post and go to dig into that list of 6 points to see what I could pull up. The reason I put the upset thing in quotes is because I thought that’s what he had said way back when he got upset and did the livestream, but the actual quote was that I had “pissed [him] off big time”. I was glad that he was more composed and didn’t leave in a fit of rage this time, and so I thanked him for that.

@31:32 – “It’s more the topic of time and resources to provide sufficient information to certain individual, like a troll Stephen Sorensen. You prefer your role of being a blind follower. He is a blind follower actually I’m going to prove it to you. He’s a blind follower. Ignoring what I was saying two years ago. Bashing me a couple time. He admitted that he was bashing me.”

Response: He again calls me a troll. Then he calls me a blind follower three times (meaning a blind follower of Fomenko). Then he says he is going to prove it. Then he said I was ignoring what he was saying two years ago. It hasn’t even been a year a half since I first asked him to substantiate his claim. The first video he did on it was posted on February 1st, 2019. The next two videos that he says it on are from less than a year ago. And again, if he or anyone interested could pull up the comments bashing him, I’d be interested in reviewing them to see exactly what I said. I admit to bashing him if bashing him means saying he has no evidence that Fomenko is a government agent, or if bashing him means that he has told lies about me. But he didn’t bring up any specific examples so I’m not sure exactly which comments he’s referring to.

@32:35 – He makes an appeal to popularity, basically saying that because he gets mostly upvotes, it shows he’s right. Popularity has no bearing on the validity of an argument, it just means your argument is popular.

Response: I respond to that comment of his and in the video he glosses over it with 7 more “blah”s. Here’s my comment:

“The truth is that you believe I acted like a troll (note that you have this far failed to define troll in any of your comments). The truth is that I never “acted like a troll”. Please do your best in your next comment to answer my question here; What was/am I a blind follower of?

He skips over reading three comments, one from him and then two from me. In short, his comment reasserted that I still do act like a troll. And then he specifies that I’m a blind follower of Fomenko and Nosovsky. Then he loads a statement with a false accusation that I was asking questions to provoke emotions. He said, “You were and still are the perfect example of a troll. So just quit that. You were starting to act like a man, continue like that and you will be just fine for me.”

My two comments that he didn’t read in response to that were:

Comment 1 – “You’re telling lies again. I never ask questions “in the narrative of provoking emotions”, I ask questions to get information. Please answer this; How was I acting like a blind follower of Fomenko and Nosovsky?”

Comment 2 – “You still have not defined troll, so please define troll in your next comment too.”

After I made those two comments, he made one more, and I responded to that, which he reads @33:30 before backtracking to read the one he made after my two.

@33:38 – “Although I did define troll. I said, “Sorensen, you are the troll. Perfect example is what you do right now. Being a smart ass is your main problem, bro. You seem so nice when you chat with others, but what you do concerning me is not nice at all. You ask the same questions pretending you don’t get the point, but you do get it. I know you are smarter than you act in this comment thread so you are trolling. Nothing else.”

Response: It appears to me that he believes calling me “the troll” is the same as defining troll or trolling. Then he says what I am doing right now is trolling. Basically he offers an example of trolling without defining trolling itself. He says I pretend to not get the point and then claims that I really do get the point. I’m not sure what point he’s talking about. What point was I pretending not to get that I actually do get but act like I don’t? Maybe PD will answer this some day. Then he accuses me again of pretending by saying indirectly that I’m acting stupider than I really am. I wasn’t pretending or putting on any disguise with PD. I was asking genuine questions and was hoping for useful responses. The comment that I made in response to the above quote was:

“You did not answer how I blindly followed Fomenko and Nosovsky and you did not define troll. Please do both of those things. 1 – explain how I blindly followed them. 2 – define troll.”

Instead of doing either of those things, he tells me to stop replying and then threatens to ban me. That was basically the end of our discussion in his group.

A side note here about the smart ass thing. Oxford defines “smart ass” as “a person who is irritating because they behave as if they know everything”. I don’t behave as if I know everything, and the whole reason I was even talking to PD was so that I could learn more.

@34:29 – “So I’m going to ban him right now because, you know, I’m sick and tired of this dude. Actually, member of Mud Flood Advanced Research May 27, 2017. So he’s like 3 years now and that’s his first post? Ignoring exactly what I said. Isn’t this trolling guys? Let’s define trolling. Let’s do it. What is actually trolling? So if he cannot Google. Internet troll.” *then he proceeds to read out loud from the Wikipedia article for Internet troll*.

Response: He lies and says he’s going to ban me because of how sick and tired of me he was but he didn’t ban me there and I don’t think he actually got around to it until the next day. It’s a minor lie but a lie nonetheless. As I already stated, I had multiple posts and comments in that group prior to the one from June 10th, 2020. I just checked again and those posts and comments are still there even though I’m banned from that group now. He lies again by saying I ignored what he said, I think referring to the time when he had me blocked and I wasn’t able to see what he said. But really as soon as I saw what he had said, I responded with questions and comments about it.

@36:15 – “Provoking me for emotions. Calling me for this, you know, saying “You are so emotional, you are so emotional”. Because you provoke me for emotions dude. What else do you do? That actually, that wasn’t emotion, that was a trap for you because I wanted to reveal who you are and, you know, see your real face, how you cherry picking facts, how you blind following everything, and stuff like this. So, I’m doing this right now.”

Response: That quote was during his speech on how I’m a troll. Again, he lies about my intention to provoke emotions from him. I don’t ever remember saying “You are so emotional”, especially twice in a row. Can I get a citation for that? When did that happen? Repeating statements like that is much more in line with PD’s speech than my own, as I noted earlier and as you might have noticed as I’ve gone through this response. He even kind of admits to being emotional when he said “Because you provoke me for emotions”. Then he goes back and says “actually that wasn’t emotion, that was a trap for you”. Is this him saying he was acting? He was pretending to have emotional responses? To reveal who I am? Here is a question from me to PD: What did you mean when you said “actually that wasn’t emotion, that was a trap for you”?

@36:51 – “So he has two channels that actually one of the channels he was trying to troll me with because I didn’t ban this one. So he was saying like lol lol lol. You don’t have any proof and stuff like this. Hadn’t made these comments so, I didn’t touch him for two years and so he came to my group, now sneaked into my group and made a post discrediting me actually. I don’t know why so I decided well, he seems like to be an ally researching same stuff we do, why should I bash him? But let’s check him out. Let’s check him out. Who he is.” *then he comments on my personal YouTube about the protest videos I posted*

Response: I never tried trolling him. I never trolled him. He’s lying again there. He is right about the proof thing though. Again, it hasn’t even been two years yet. Note his speech style where he says “let’s check him out” twice in a row.

This part is interesting. In this video, before that quote, he showed that I joined his group in May 2017. But in the quote he claims that I snuck into his group. It would be impossible for me to sneak into his group because I was already in his group long before PD ever had an issue with me. I joined his group around the same time I joined the rest of the mud flood groups that I’m in, which was in 2017. I didn’t even realize it was his group when I posted the link. I posted it in a number of mud flood groups to try and get feedback on it. As PD noted, not many people were commenting. People liked the article in the various groups but I didn’t receive any suggestions for improvement. Again, did PD intentionally lie to his viewers about me sneaking into his group?

As for my personal YouTube channel that has my name on it. I use that channel to listen to music, listen to lectures, watch content that my friends make, to create playlists for those various topics, etc etc. Basically just to use YouTube for its intended purposes. This year, 2020, the protests got crazy and I posted three videos that I screen recorded from Snapchat because it was wild to me that people were doing that downtown, a place which I’ve spent a decent amount of time. Those are the only 3 videos I have on that channel because I don’t really have personal content that I post on YouTube. I post a lot more on my Ctruth YouTube channel.

My Ctruth YouTube channel where I post content related to my research and studies can be found here.

@37:51 – “He’s a blind follower of Fomenko of course because he’s talking everything only on Fomenko, nothing else. You can find that video in the description link and watch it also and check out that interview…”

Response: I talk about more than just Fomenko in the video he’s talking about there, but the video topic is mostly about Fomenko, and so we focused heavily on him during that conversation. PD says that because I only talk on Fomenko and nothing else, it means I’m a blind follower of Fomenko. However, I do talk about other things besides Fomenko and so PD’s reasoning is based upon a lie. PD then lies again and says that you can find and watch that video in the description link but it is still not there.

@38:50 – “If he wasn’t a blind follower, would he’ve name his group, website ChronologyTruth? See the truth about Chronology Today. Fomenko New Chronology. Everything is about Fomenko and research on Fomenko. So it’s not bad or good it’s just, you know, you following and you are not questioning anything here. You’re just, you know, repeating what Fomenko says and that’s it. That’s blind following, you know.”

Response: Yes, even without being a blind follower, I would and I did name my website ChronologyTruth. What is the truth about chronology? The truth about is chronology is that its foundations become sketchier and sketchier the further back you explore through the centuries. PD then goes to my page that contains links to my articles which are specifically about Fomenko’s New Chronology. Yes, on the page for Fomenko’s New Chronology, everything is about Fomenko and research on Fomenko. As for the whole website? No, not everything is about Fomenko.

He said I’m just following and not questioning anything. At the top of that page, in the first paragraph, I wrote, “I, Stephen Sorensen, wanted to validate or invalidate Fomenko’s information. I wanted to see what parts of it had merit and what parts didn’t have merit. And even today, I still want to see what parts have merit and what parts don’t.” I have asked tons of questions about Fomenko’s New Chronology in order to figure out what parts have merit and what parts don’t. I think either PD didn’t read that or he ignored it in order to try and convince his viewers that I am indeed a blind follower who doesn’t question Fomenko. PD lied when he stated that I’m just repeating what Fomenko says and nothing else. Did Fomenko write the two paragraphs at the top of that page? No. I wrote those. And I’ve created a lot of other content which I doubt Fomenko has ever mentioned in his works. At the end of that quote, PD again reasserts his lie that I’m engaged in a blind following.

@39:31 – “Arguments against Fomenko New Chronology. Let’s see. He, he’s like, you know, trying to, you know, put up this rational arguments, rational list of arguments against Fomenko New Chronology. What this or that source said about chronology. Stuff like this. So, that’s ok. So, protecting someone without even researching stuff by yourself is a blind following, you know. Trying to argue on someone’s positions without doing research by yourself, double checking, triple checking, finding out who’s real source. He didn’t know about Postnikov. He didn’t know about Morozov. He didn’t know about Newton. Nothing. Never said a word here about that, ok? That’s blind following.”

Response: I’m not sure what he means by a rational list of arguments. I made that list so that I’d have all the arguments against Fomenko in one place. I even say on that article that the list is incomplete. If you read it, I say to please contact me with any links that you’d like to see added to it. You can even see that text of mine in PD’s video.

I have spent a significant amount of my time researching this topic by myself. That includes double checking, triple checking, sometimes even quadruple and quintuple checking content. I’m not sure how providing arguments against Fomenko’s New Chronology is protecting Fomenko. If anything it’s giving fuel to the people who want to prove Fomenko to be wrong. I did know about Postnikov, Morozov, and Newton, and I’ve even written articles on Morozov and Newton. I haven’t written any on Postnikov yet but this is only because I haven’t gotten around to it, not because I don’t know anything about him. Also why would I mention Newton or Morozov on the arguments against Fomenko’s New Chronology article? Both of them died long before Fomenko was even born. At the end of that quote, PD reasserts his lie that I’m blindly following Fomenko.

@40:52 – “So, naming something truth is blind following without doing any research. You have to question everything.”

Response: I did a significant amount of studying and researching before coming up with the name for my website and since I’ve made the website I’ve done an even more significant amount of studying and research. PD claims that I haven’t done any of that, but my website and content show that to be just another lie of his.

@42:18 – “What is hype? What is your definition of hype, you know? You should ask him. *then he reads the bit from my article that says* “Discovering our true past seems to be the main drive behind mud flood researchers.” *then he comments saying* So, ok. That’s kind of ignorant sentence but who cares?”

Response: My definition of hype is enthusiastic promotion. The mud flood hype is the enthusiastic promotion of mud flood ideas that took place around the time that I wrote that article in the early part of 2019. As PD showed in his video, it was around the end of 2018 that mud flood increased significantly in popularity as a search term.

Then he says that my sentence is ignorant. How is it ignorant? Is discovering our true past not the main drive behind mud flood researchers? If gaining a greater understanding of human history and what it means for us today isn’t what drives mud flood researchers, then what does drive mud flood researchers? A question to my viewers: Are you a mud flood researcher? If so, what drives your interest in the mud flood?

@42:48 – PD comments on my mistake in thinking that mudflood is similar to mudflow. I can admit it’s a mistake, as I have already mentioned in this response. The mudflood article of mine that he was reading from was one of the first articles I put up on my website. I was just starting to take researching more seriously and am fine with having made some mistakes. Now I am more strict with how I conduct research and how I write my articles and don’t think I’d make the same mistake again. I have often encouraged people to contact me about any mistakes that they find so that I can fix them and get my content as accurate as possible. I haven’t had anyone tell me there were issues with that page until I saw PD’s video on me. Now I plan on going back to it and editing it, because that’s what I do when errors are brought up. I do my best to correct them and to do better in future publications. As I said before, I thought mudflows and mudfloods were more or less synonymous. PD says I’m wrong about that. I’m ok with his critique and I have since then changed my mind about their synonymous nature.

@45:58 – “What questions? *he reads my question again* “How long have humans been making an effort to study the earth?” *to which PD responds with* “uhh, Google it, bro. You got the answer man. Since day one they studied the earth. You been born and you study the earth since day one. If you don’t study the earth then you are not living in earth, right?”

Response: He makes that comment because I said the answer to the question seems unobtainable for now. I said that it seems that way because we really don’t know what intellectual pursuits our earliest ancestors were engaged in. There are still many debates about when our earliest ancestors were even around. PD tells me to go to Google to find my answer. I think he does this because Google is his go to tool for his own research. This “Google first” issue was brought up by the scholar Anthony Grafton in this YouTube video in relation to the research habits of students at a top ranked British University. The part I’m referencing is around the 28:40 mark and he talks about how the majority of the students basically never use the prioritized and specialized methods offered by libraries for obtaining information about what they’re researching and instead they go straight to Google or Yahoo and don’t spend much time on the content that they read. Also, they don’t even go to Google Scholar, just basic Google.

My point in mentioning Grafton’s commentary is that even those people in the study who I think would be expected to have a higher standard for research typically didn’t. They go right to Google or Yahoo, and then skim the links they find for the information that they want. In a way, this could result in cherry-picking information if they are not aware of the context of the information they pull, and if they use that content out of context. In PD’s video about me, Google and Wikipedia are his two main go-to’s for his information.

When I first started to create content for my website, I also used Wikipedia a lot. As time went on I realized just how problematic that can be, and especially after listening to Grafton I have made more of an effort to fact check Wikipedia if I happen to find myself on an article from it, and to improve its information where and when I can. If you read any of my recent articles, there are significantly fewer links, if any links at all, to Wikipedia compared to my earliest articles. I still think Google is great, and Wikipedia lesser so, but they are both far from being the most reliable sources of information.

As for the baby thing. By studying the earth, I meant the land, the rocks, everything covered in geology, and maybe oceanography, but not astronomy or meteorology. Although I am curious as to how far back those other 3 studies go. The point here is that babies do not have the mental faculties to engage in studying geology. I wonder if PD Googled the question and saw something saying “we study the earth as soon as we are born” and just ran with it. I doubt PD even Googled the answer though. I think it’s likely, based on the video he made about me, that he made the comment as another attempt to make me look stupid.

@47:55 – “And he gives an data from Google. Mudflood search popularity. Like, saying it’s miserable. Mudflow, is bigger. And so he compares mudflood to mudflows. He totally lies here. Well actually, that is proving that he is a blind follower because he doesn’t even recognize the search, the keyword search for mudflood is not correct for this comparison.”

Response: I did give data from Google but it wasn’t to say mudflood popularity results were miserable. It was just to get an idea on what Google reported. I did compare mudflood to mudflows, but I’m not sure how screenshotting Google results is totally lying. Hence, PD lies about me lying. I reported the results honestly and didn’t edit them or lie about anything.

PD said I was a blind follower of Fomenko and Nosovsky. How does searching for the popularity of the keyword mudflood instead of the keywords mud flood prove that I’m a blind follower of them? Am I a blind follower of something else? Like I mentioned earlier, my researching and reporting skills have increased over the past year and a half. At the time that I wrote the mudflood article, I didn’t think of searching for mudflood with a space between the two words. I think it’s a good idea to include that, and so when I go back to edit the mudflood article, I plan on putting more extensive search comparisons between the different terms.

@48:38 – PD shows his results in the popularity search and they show that the term “mud flood” had a huge spike in popularity around November and December 2018. This is a bit after I had heard about it, but I do remember the discussions gaining a significant amount of popularity around that time. This kind of explains why I don’t remember hearing much about it prior to 2017 or 2018. It does look like the term has been losing popularity since then though.

@49:40 – “So, just ridiculing the mudflood with this. I don’t know why he presents this, you know, this is like ridiculous.”

Response: PD lied again when he said I’m just ridiculing the mudflood. I don’t think I’ve ever ridiculed what I thought mudfloods were. I might change my mind on whether or not mudfloods deserve ridicule or not now that PD has explained I was wrong about what mudfloods are.

@50:10 – PD shows my group called Think Well. I made the group to provide a space for people who wanted to practice and encourage thinking critically and logically, and to get rid of thinking with fallacies. Basically to practice and encourage thinking well instead of thinking poorly. It didn’t get much attention and I stopped keeping up with posting in there for the meantime. The content is still good and so I let people know it’s there in case they want to see what I did with that. I have plans on getting back to it in the future, but for now I’m more focused on producing content about history than I am on producing content about thinking well.

@50:34 – “Although he kind of pretends to be a big researcher of Fomenko.”

Response: If there was a list of all of the people who have ever looked into Fomenko’s works and the list had how much time each person spent looking into Fomenko, I think I’d be among the people with the most hours invested. Also, to state it again, I’m not playing pretend or acting any other way than I really am here.

@51:01 – “So, I don’t know. That is, that is ok because, you know, actually, that is just part of the poor trade of him being a little loser. That’s one of his main experts, talking with him about mudfloods. Let’s find that post actually about the mudfloods. Great reading, huh?”

Response: History itself isn’t that popular of a subject to begin with. Ancient and medieval history seems to be even less popular than contemporary history. I’m not all that surprised that people aren’t flocking to the group by the millions. PD tries to insult me by calling me a little loser (in an attempt to bully me) and then goes on to lie about one of the other members of the group, claiming he is one of my main experts. I don’t think I’ve ever said anything about the guy being one of my main experts. I’m not even sure what he would be one of my main experts on. I think he collects and deals antiques but I’m not even all that familiar with his business. If I had to guess what he might be an expert on, I’d say antiques, but even that I don’t know if he would consider himself an expert. I wonder what areas of interest ZB would consider himself an expert in.

@54:33 – PD reads a comment from the mudflood post in my Fomenko Studies group that said, “Everyone thinks that floods or mudslides can only be the work of natural forces!” PD agrees with him even though PD said earlier in this same video that mudfloods are not natural occurances. PD comments on that by saying, “Well, I totally agree with Robert Krisztin. One smart person from this Fomenko Studies group.” If he totally agreed with Robert, then that means he disagreed with himself from less than an hour prior.

@55:28 – PD shows my Facebook page that I named New Chronology Memes. It’s a page but he calls it a group. He reasserts his claim that I’m a blind follower based on the fact that I have a meme page to post memes about New Chronology. He comments that “all the stupid memes” (again trying to bully me) are only on New Chronology. The reason why the memes are on New Chronology is because that’s the topic of the page. For example, I follow a page called Terrible Maps that posts pictures of, you might have already guessed it, Terrible Maps. Does this mean that they think all the maps are true? No. PD says, “He’s always blind following this New Chronology like everywhere else”. The memes aren’t arguments in support of New Chronology. They’re simply humorous memes made with the validity of New Chronology being granted. This doesn’t mean I blindly follow it, just that I have made memes granting it to be valid for the sake of humor. Also, as the page says, it is just for fun. It’s not meant to be taken seriously, the same as many meme pages out there.

@56:54 – “I don’t know. Did you buy all those people? So you can finally, I can state you can finally Google and you could’ve Googled what is troll, what is my video about Fomenko by posting Druzhinin Fomenko you will find it easily. But you just a troll, man. You just a troll. You seem to be an ally but you just a, you know, a troll. So you can Google enough to buy yourself some likes for your page and can’t Google to find the answers on my, on the questions that I raised? Get a life, man.”

Response: He asks the question about buying people in response to my page almost having 1500 likes, which isn’t even that many likes compared to the number of people on my Facebook friends list. I did not buy all those people. I invited people from my friends list to like my page and they did. I’ve never bought likes for anything, including my Ctruth Facebook page which he is asking the question about. He asserts again that I’m just a troll, which I’m not. He then acts as though I really did buy those likes and tries to ridicule me for doing that through Google and not Googling the answers to the questions that he raised. I’m not even sure what questions he’s referring to.

Although, if I were to buy likes, I wouldn’t go to Google, I’d go to Fiverr. And I would do this because of the comedian Richard Sarvate’s joke which PD reminded me of. But just to say this once and for all, I have never and will never spend money on buying likes.

@57:39 – “He probably doesn’t want anybody to know about this”.

Response: I don’t care if people know about my glitch art Facebook page and that’s why I left it up all this time. It was something I did just for fun from around February to May of 2019. I had taken an interest in glitch art and used a free app on my phone to make some. I didn’t end up spending much time on it because I wanted to focus on other pursuits. I posted some of the images I had edited in case anyone wanted to see the. I had fun making them and messing around with the glitch style, but in the end it was just some fun experimentation for visual arts and photo editing. I might continue again on it in the future but as of right now I don’t have any plans to do so.

@58:10 – “So, I think I proved that he is an internet troll, nothing else. Switching topics, cherrypicking facts, blind following his research. *he then mocks my website and continues with* But actually he is just a unemployed rich boy who is living in his father’s house with a swimming pool, has a little brother and so on. So, doesn’t have any time to have a decent research, but has time to post 40+ comments under his first post in my group that is like he waited for so long for Fomenko mentioning something with the keyword mud, like a mudflow in Jerusalem in 17th century which is not related to 19th century at all. This is blind following. This is blind following guys. And now we go to Fomenko.”

Response: I think the only thing PD proved was how poorly he went about researching who I am. I’m a pretty open book when it comes to my personal life and had he made any attempt to contact me about my personal life, I probably would’ve answered his questions to the best of my abilities, depending on what questions he asked. I might’ve been a bit skeptical as to why he hadn’t presented any evidence for Fomenko being an agent yet, but I would’ve been glad that he was at least appearing to be attempting to get to know me or be friends. He said he could “find probably each and every information off on everyone” in his Fomenko announcement video, but based on his hour long video about me, I have my doubts about that.

It’s true that I am unemployed. However, it’s mainly due to a crippling injury that I received earlier this year. In a way, PD is ridiculing a crippled person for not being employed anywhere. He lied about me living at my father’s house. I haven’t lived with my parents since I was 18 and I’m 25 now. I visit them on occasion but mostly only for holidays and birthdays.

He said I don’t have time for decent research, but the content that I’ve produced shows this is just another lie from him. He said I commented 40+ comments under my first post in his group. I already showed that post wasn’t my first post in that group, and, to get specific, I posted 19 comments on that post before he deleted it. Meaning once again, PD lied about me and then exaggerated that number to distort it into being over double of what it really was. PD commented a total of 21 comments before he deleted the post which is more than the amount that I posted.

Another comment about PD’s use of speech. He acted like he was quoting me earlier when he was trying to say I was saying things twice in a row. I don’t do that, but PD speaking how he typically speaks does appear to do that. I think this is further evidence of him distorting who I am by projecting his own personal traits onto me. He tried to claim I repeat statements twice in a row like that when in reality he does. He tried to claim that I troll him when I wasn’t, but it appears to me that he’s trying to troll me (I base that largely on his comment from his announcement video). He tried accusing me without evidence of cherry-picking and he quite literally cherry-picks for this video about me.

For anyone not exactly clear on what cherry-picking is, LogicallyFallacious.com describes it as “When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld.  The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument.” That website also reports that cherry-picking is known as “ignoring inconvenient data, suppressed evidence, fallacy of incomplete evidence, argument by selective observation, argument by half-truth“. I think PD did this most blatantly when he was ignoring all the texts on my website in his attempt to prove me to be a blind follower of Fomenko. Unlike me being unable to see PD’s comments on Facebook because he had me blocked, PD’s video shows the texts on my website clear enough that anybody watching the video can pause it and read them too.

He ends that quote by reasserting that it’s all evidence of a blind following and then says “now we go to Fomenko” right before putting my picture on the screen. This is another lie from PD to his viewers as the video does not go on to Fomenko. The video starts to play silly music and continues on like that for about 3 and a half minutes. The 3 and a half minute segment is titled “Look who is trolling now”. It doesn’t show me trolling and PD is the only other person involved here, so I figure maybe this is his cryptic admission to trolling.

@59:35 – PD shows an image of a troll from South Park with the caption “commenting harder than a mofo”. As I mentioned earlier, he commented more times than I did. If the amount of comments was indicative of the level of trolling, he was trolling harder than I was. However, I don’t think comment volume determines trolling levels, and to say it again, I was never trolling.

@59:41 – PD shows a profile picture of mine from Facebook with the caption “pretending to be nice after trolling hard”. Again, I’m not pretending to be anything other than I what I am, and I never trolled him.

@59:45 – PD shows an image of one of my PresidentTrip PayPal account. This was the first PayPal account I ever made and later I found out that you can’t change your PayPal name. I’ve had a few people ask me about the name “PresidentTrip” so I’ll just quick explain what I was thinking when I made it. PresidentTrip was the name for a gamertag that I chose for my Xbox live account at the end of 2016 when Donald Trump won the presidential election. I thought it was a trip that he actually won, and I had been thinking about new changing my tag for awhile, and so I chose PresidentTrip because I thought it was funny and a clever play on words, especially in light of me typically being the most strategic on my team for online games. Also at the time I was somewhat active in raising awareness about the involvement of government agencies in spreading the drugs that you might refer to as psychotomimetics, hallucinations, psychedelics, or entheogens. I would let people know about the different names of those drugs, who created them, when they became popular in the west, and which agencies seemed to have helped spread them through Western culture. I was advocating that people be aware of all this because some of the history behind those drugs is sketchy to me. Prior to that, I think my Xbox gamertag had always been PandaNatural.

As for the PayPal account, that PresidentTrip one is still active and I do receive donations through it. However, I do have an official PayPal for Ctruth and you can donate to that one @ www.paypal.me/ctruthtoday.

I also take donations on Cash App @ $Ctruthtoday and on Venmo @Ctruthtoday.

@59:52 – PD shows an image that I made for fun and posted on February 4th, 2019, of Bender from Futurama in the neighborhood from Ed, Edd, n Eddy. He captioned it “is he tripping ? – obviously lol”. I wasn’t tripping when I made that image, I wasn’t tripping when was talking to him, and I’m not tripping now.

@1:00:00 – PD shows an image of me and my little brother that I think was taken in 2008 or 2009, when I was like 13 or 14, basically over a decade ago. He captioned the image with “Emerged to be a blind follower of FOMENKO”. The caption isn’t really related to the image, as I hadn’t even heard about Fomenko for some 5 years later after that picture was taken. There’s another image at this timestamp from one of my Scholarly Snippets episodes, the episode also was not about Fomenko, and I don’t think Fomenko is mentioned at all in it.

@1:00:27 – PD plays a video of a woman stepping on a man’s back side to massage it. He has an image of me from a Scholarly Snippets episode in the top right corner. The timestamp is captioned with “great specialist of tartarian massage”. Maybe this is his attempt to bully me about studying acupuncture and massage so as to know more about the human body and to be able to help treat and prevent injuries? Whatever the case may be, I don’t think I’ve ever studied tartarian massage, although I am somewhat familiar with how to perform acupuncture and some other types of massages.

@1:00:48 – PD shows an image of a post I made when I was looking for a weekend job. He captioned it “weekend job researcher lol”. I think he meant to convey that I was looking to be, or that I am, a weekend job researcher, like I only research on the weekends or not much at all. He can clarify that comment of his if he ever feels inclined to do so. I made that post about looking for a weekend job when I already had a weekday job. I posted it because I wanted to make more money than I was making, and since I already had a weekday job, the weekend was the only time I had available to take on another job.

@1:00:58 – PD shows an image of my Think Well group captioned with “trolls group” and an arrow pointing to the group name. I’m not a troll, so this is another lie from PD.

@1:01:04 – PD shows an image of my Fomenko Studies group captioned with “troll’s group” and an arrow pointing to the group name. I’m still not a troll, so this is yet another lie from PD.

@1:01:08 – PD shows an image of my TripGlitch page with the caption “greatest modern artist”. I’ve never made such a statement about myself being the greatest modern artist. Like I said before, that page was something I barely put any time into and was mostly just me exploring what type of glitch art I could make at the time. I haven’t done anything with that page for over a year.

@1:01:36 – PD shows an image that says I’m currently unemployed and captioned it with “has enough time to troll real researchers”. I don’t troll researchers and to say it again, I’m crippled now. I can’t do the jobs anymore that I’ve been doing my whole life.

@1:01:44 – PD shows an image of the entrance to my parent’s neighborhood and captioned it with “hiding in the rich neighborhood” and “troll hut” with an arrow pointing back into the neighborhood because you can’t see the house from the Google street view. To say it again, I haven’t lived with my parents since I was 18 and I’m 25 now. Also, I’m still not a troll. Even if I was a troll, which I’m not, PD would be lying again to his viewers that the “troll hut” is located over there. To give some perspective, I live about 30 minutes away from my parents.

I’m curious as to how he managed to obtain my parent’s address. I asked them if they had it posted on the internet anywhere and they said they didn’t think so. How did PD obtain that information? This might be worth asking him as it would shed light on what lengths PD will go to lie about someone. Did he spend money to obtain their address because he believed in the delusion that I live there with them? Let me know what you think about how he obtained their address.

@1:01:55 – PD shows an aerial view of my parent’s house captioned with “troll hut” pointing at the house and “troll pool” pointing at the pool. Again, I haven’t lived with my parents since 18, and that was not the house I lived in with them. He just continues to lie to his audience based on his poor attempt to figure out details about my life.

@1:02:02 – PD shows a picture of my dad from when he got a hole-in-one at the golf course. He captioned with “trolls dad that pays trolls bills”. I’m not a troll, so PD is again lying to his viewers. My dad does pay my bills and for that I am incredibly thankful and hope someday I’ll be able to repay the favor to him, or at least be able to do the same for my own child or children if they needed the help. There are significantly fewer jobs that I can do now that I’m crippled. I feel lucky that my father has been able to provide for me, and that he has been willing to do so. I know this might not always be the case, and that he won’t always be around, and so I’m spending time now developing skills which I’ll be able to use to live for when I can’t sit, stand up, or walk. PD then shows a screenshot from Facebook of my dad’s job history.

@1:02:24 – PD shows a picture of me from one of my Scholarly Snippets episodes that he captioned with “when tired of trolling – makes more glitch art”. I don’t troll, and I barely ever made any glitch art. I’d be surprised if the total amount of time I put into that page exceeded 20 hours over the 4 months that I posted on it. Again, the caption is just PD lying about me to his viewers.

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

Closing comments: PD made an hour long video on me, the majority of which was one lie after another. He ridiculed me, mocked me, tried to bully me, and I think there’s a high chance he was trying to troll me. He committed the same fallacies that he accused me of and also committed additional fallacies that he didn’t accuse me of. I think in light of my response, the whole hour long video is a good example of how poorly PD conducted his research about me. It makes me wonder about how his sloppy research methods affect his other content and who else has been targeted.

The next hour of the video is about Fomenko, and so I’m not going to focus on it here. If you found this response interesting and want to hear more of my responses to the rest of PD’s video, let me know and maybe I’ll end up doing that. But the main purpose of this response was to clear my name of any misconceptions and to address the serious dishonesty that PD exercised in creating the video.

I am open about a lot of things in my life and chances are if you contact me to ask about me, I’ll let you know my answers to your questions.

My closing statement is for PD. PD, what you did in response to our discussion is not what honest researchers who are seeking the truth do. If you want to be an honest researcher and you do want to pursue the truth, I fully support you. I’m even willing to have a video chat in order to try and make amends, but I want you to first at least thoroughly listen to my response, make the best effort you can to try and understand what has happened over the past year and a half or so, and try to see how you could have responded differently. If you have no interest in making amends, I’m ok with that. If you have no interest in seeking the truth, I’m ok with that also. I’m easy to contact though if you do decide that you are interested in those two things. I’ll be keeping an eye out for a message from you so that we can resolve this as soon as possible. Again, my intent was never to provoke an emotional response from you. All I wanted was your evidence that Fomenko was or is a government agent.

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

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

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is aa687bd6-a16e-4282-99cd-75d0bc130951.jpg

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

The Backstory to my Response to Philipp Druzhinin, the Mud Flood Researcher

This is part one of my official response to my interactions with Philipp Druzhinin, and especially the video which had a segment about an hour long which was specifically about me. The video about me was published on YouTube on July 2, 2020 under the title “Fomenko’s Historical Hell’s Kitchen / Is He an AGENT? You decide”. I refer to Philipp as PD in this article. His channel had around 21,400 subscribers when I last checked on July 3, 2020.

The reason why I’ve decided to make this response is because PD tells a lot of lies about me in order to convince people that I am a “troll”. I’m not a troll and I’m making this response to clear up any misconceptions about who I am and what I do.

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

Here’s a timeline of our interactions pertaining to Fomenko:

Mid-January (two week before February 1st) 2019 – PD left a comment on schism206’s YouTube video titled 4.4 Occult Catholic Chronology – Fomenko’s Freemasonry. PD’s comment was “Fomenko is a government agent” and I responded with “got anything to back that up?”. He never responded to the question.

January 31st, 2019 – PD and I were friends on Facebook, and because he hadn’t responded to my YouTube comment, I messaged him on messenger at 9:26pm EST saying, “Do you have any information on Fomenko being a government agent?”, which he read about 2 and a half hours later at 11:57pm EST. He never responded to the question.

Around/On February 1st, 2019 – The post is gone and the screenshots aren’t complete, but I think PD had made a comment in a group that him and I were both in saying that Fomenko had made stuff up. The screenshot I have is my response to him and it says, “Philipp, ye, can you name one thing specifically that he has “made up”?”. He did not name one specific thing. Instead, he responded with, “If your research is based on proving that the history was falsified, then you have to admit the sources are also edited, so you can’t do anything based on those sources. This is the point when his brilliant computer based science becomes imaginary. I know you wanted me to give you a couple of shots on him, but I guess I’ll do it later in one of my videos.” The post was made in a group which was named “The Great Tartarian Empire – truth and facts”. I’m not sure what he meant by “a couple of shots on him”, because what I asked was for one thing specifically, not multiple things, but a single thing.

Again, the screenshots are incomplete, but it the end of my comment “that does not at all show Fomenko as an agent, it would only mean that every history source is fake, which means Fomenko is mistaken”. He responds with, “Stephen Sorensen you’re the one who said about the agent here , so why don’t you prove us that he is or he is not , if you wanted t my opinion then you’ve got it , the further and more detailed video on Fomenko is going to be broadcasted as soon as I’ll finish the rest of the line of videos”. I responded to that with “Philipp, you made the claim that Fomenko is a government agent, but do you have any evidence on hand? a simple fact? no.”

It looks like then I commented the screenshot of his comment on schism206’s video to remind him about what he had said about 2 weeks prior. He responded with “Stephen Sorensen I answered you because my friend invited me to this respected group, if I would know you were planning to troll me I would not even bother to answer you, but you pissed me off big time now – I’ll do a live video in a couple of minutes”. To which I responded, “Ig we got really different definitions for trolling. Where me requesting substantiating evidence for a claim is trolling to you, you making…” and I don’t have the rest of the comment because the post has been deleted and I wasn’t as experienced in screenshotting at the time. Also little did I know at the time what PD would be doing about me in the future.

He did do the livestream but there wasn’t any evidence (in my opinion) that Fomenko was a government agent in it. If you think there is evidence in that video of Fomenko being a government agent, please contact me with a timestamp from his video where he presents the evidence. His livestream title was “New Chronology by Nosovskiy and Fomenko MY OPINION ON FOMENKO”. It has a runtime of 22:00.

November 29, 2019 – PD posted a video on his YouTube channel of him being a guest on the YouTube channel “Baked and Awake”. The video is currently titled “Mud Flood Chat with Baked and Awake”. It has a runtime of 28:53. He talks about Fomenko in this video, but I don’t remember any evidence for Fomenko being a government agent being presented. If you think there is evidence, please contact me with a timestamp from that video that shows PD’s evidence. A reminder: claims can be evidence, but are not always evidence. Evidence can be used to substantiate a claim. PD claiming that Fomenko’s New Chronology is Russian propaganda is only evidence that PD claimed that Fomenko’s New Chronology is Russian propaganda. If there is evidence for Fomenko’s New Chronology being Russian propaganda, it is independent of PD’s claims, and he can use it to substantiate his claims.

December 28, 2019 – PD is again a guest on the YouTube channel “Baked and Awake”. The video is currently titled “Philipp Druzhinin, Mud Flood Chat Part Two- “The Druzhining”. It has a runtime of 1:02:29. He talks about Fomenko in this video, but I don’t remember any evidence for Fomenko being a government agent being presented. If you think there is evidence, please contact me with a timestamp from that video that shows PD’s evidence.

June 9th, 2020 – I posted an article titled “Fomenko’s Mudflood and New Chronology” in a Facebook group named “MUD FLOOD ADVANCED RESEARCH”. The article was my second article ever about mudflood and I wrote it because I thought Fomenko might have made notice of a mudflood (on which I’m still unsure of what the exact definition is) when he mentioned the term “mudflow”. The reason I thought the two terms were more or less synonymous is because of my first article on mudfloods where I state that I think they are similar if not the same thing. Nobody ever contacted me about that article being wrong and it had 509 views in 2019 so I didn’t pay much mind to it. Also mudfloods have not been a core interest of mine in my research, so admittedly I’m incredibly uninformed on what they are, but am open to adding new/better information to my mudflood article if it’s ever brought my way. Just as I do with any article on my website. If additional or improved information is presented to me, I will adjust my articles so that they can be as accurate as possible. I’ve done this a number of times already and plan on continuing to do so in the future.

PD was the first person to comment on my video but I didn’t know he had commented on it because for some reason the comment didn’t show for me. I would think this is because he had me blocked, but if he had me blocked, I’m not sure if he would see my post. Possibly admins for Facebook groups can still see the posts of people who they have blocked but I haven’t confirmed this yet. Whatever the case may be, the first response I ever saw on my post in that group was from someone named Maria. I try to respond to every comment that people leave on my posts and so I responded to hers. It was after my response to her that she made another comment in which she had tagged PD. At this point I realized that maybe PD was commenting on it and I wasn’t able to see what he was saying. I hopped onto a different Facebook account and my suspicion was confirmed. He was commenting on the post.

At first I only saw his comment which was in response to Maria, saying “there are many of places that could be probably be named Jerusalem, but the post was about Fomenko mentions of Mudflood, so the post isn’t correct that’s all I can say for now”. I didn’t see PD’s response to Maria saying sorry before I commented again. After that I noticed the rest of PD’s comments and later I didn’t have to switch back and forth between accounts to see them all. I think that this is because he unblocked me. I recorded the post before he took it down and you can read the comments here.

I responded to Maria saying, “PD has a grudge against Fomenko bc he thinks [Fomenko] is a govt agent. However, PD has nothing to back his belief, hence the cryptic “that’s all I can say for now””. I said that because I really don’t think PD has any good reason to believe Fomenko is a government agent or wrong in his research, hence all he can do is talk poorly about Fomenko without substantiating his claims. My comment was made to emphasize the point that that’s all he can say because that’s all he has, obscure “facts” and a vendetta against Fomenko. Again, if you think otherwise, please contact me. I am interested in any evidence that shows Fomenko is a government agent.

The last comment of his on that post was “I will , take your time … Quit replying here you can be banned. As soon as I am ready you will be informed. Take care”. His next comment was the link to the video which prompted me to make this response.

Check out my detailed response to that video here.

July 1st, 2020 – PD posted a video on his YouTube channel titled “Fomenko video announcement”. It has a runtime of 2:11. Here is a quote from that video @0:33:

“And there’ll be some answers to those who uhm who believe uhh that uhh what trolling what bullying is uhh something that you can get away with. So. Especially when you do it somebody who can troll back, so. Uhh you know I’m uhh *I can’t tell what he says here, it sounds something like 80-FLEVO* uhh trolling person and I can find probably each and every information off on everyone…”

I never trolled him, as I show in my response to his hour long video. And I had my suspicions that he was trying to troll me with his video but proving intent is a difficult thing to do. In that quote there from his announcement video he says he can troll back. This isn’t an admission that he will troll me back, but it does sound like trolling isn’t outside of what he’d consider to be an acceptable response to thinking I was trolling him. He also says something about getting away with bullying, which I think it’s clear in his hour long video that he attempts to bully me.

Oxford Languages defines the noun bully as “a person who habitually seeks to harm or intimidate those whom they perceive as vulnerable.” and the verb bully as “seek to harm, intimidate, or coerce (someone perceived as vulnerable).” Was PD trying to bully me? I don’t feel intimidated or harmed, but I do feel like that was his main intent in his video.

Also July 1st, 2020 – PD posts his video “Fomenko’s Historical Hell’s Kitchen / Is He an AGENT? You decide”. You can find that video of his here.

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

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

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is aa687bd6-a16e-4282-99cd-75d0bc130951.jpg

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

The Mysterious Voynich Manuscript

This is the Ctruth Article of the Month for July, 2020. The topic for the Article of the Month is voted on each month by Ctruth patrons. The topic for the July 2020 article is “records”. A special thanks goes out from the Ctruth team to the Ctruth patrons. Thank you for your pledges and your votes.

If you are not a patron yet, you can pledge here or by clicking the Patreon image at the end of this article.

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

“[the] most mysterious manuscript in the world” – Professor John M. Manley (1921)

I’m not sure if there is any other manuscript which is more infamous for the mystery which surrounds their contents than the Voynich Manuscript. The Voynich Manuscript is currently being held at the Beinecke Library as MS 408. It appears to be a scientific manuscript containing 102 vellum leaves. It is illustrated with around “400 botanical, 42 biological, 33 astrological or astronomical drawings, and 350 single star figures, all in varied shades of green, brown, yellow, blue, and red” [4, p.347].

The collector of old manuscripts, Wilfrid M. Voynich, from whom the manuscript takes it name, discovered it in a castle in southern Europe in 1912. Voynich reported in 1921 that “even a necessarily brief examination of the vellum upon which it was written, calligraphy, the drawings and the pigments suggested to me as the date of its origins the latter part of the thirteenth century”.

Voynich also reported in 1921 that “the history of this manuscript so far as at present can be ascertained or reasonably conjectured , we must conclude that it rested in some monastery in England, where Roger Bacon’s manuscripts remained until the dissolution of the religious houses in the sixteenth century. At that time, together with other treasures from these disbanded libraries, it probably passed into the hands of one of the receivers of this spoil, the Duke of Northumberland. It was very likely one of the manuscripts probably found in this family’s possession by John Dee, who certainly early in his career obtained a collection of Bacon manuscripts. During one of his visits to Prague, Dee undoubtedly presented it to Emperor Rudolph II, from whose possession it passed into the hands of Jacobus de Tepenecz not earlier than 1608. The manuscript then passed into the possession of a person whose name is at present unknown but who is known to have bequeathed it to Marcus Marci. It was given by Marci, in 1665 (or 1666), to Athanasius Kircher. Its subsequent history becomes again conjectural, and we may suppose that it was presented by Kircher to a patron in one of the ruling houses of Italy, after which it remained buried until it was discovered by me in 1912”.

Its authorship has been attributed to Anthony Askham [1, p.898] and Roger Bacon [3, p.546]. There is still a debate about who the true author of the manuscript was.

Strong reported (1947) that the manuscript is “coded in a double reverse system of arithmetic progressions of a multiple alphabet”. He also reports that plants were the main source of medicinal products in the 16th century. He suggests that Askham based the manuscript upon contemporary local medicinal remedies.

O’Neill reported (1944) that he and six botanists concluded that there was a sunflower (Helianthus annuus L) on folio 93. The sunflower was brought to Europe in 1493 in the form of seeds from the Americas. This means that the manuscript would have to have been created after 1493, unless there was some evidence to show that the sunflower was in Europe prior to the voyages of Columbus.

f.93 recto and verso

O’Neill also reported that there is another plant from the Americas, namely Capsicum, on f.101.

f.101v

Brumbaugh reported (1974) that the author of the manuscript not only made it difficult to decode the text by misspelling words and using a pseudo-Latin, but also that the plants were distorted to make identifying them more difficult. He noted that red peppers were colored green on f.100r and f.100v. Through his deciphering of the manuscript, he found the word pepper next to the plants on those folios.

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

References:

[1] – STRONG, L. C., and E. L. McCAWLEY. “A VERIFICATION OF A HITHERTO UNKNOWN PRESCRIPTION OF THE 16TH CENTURY.” Bulletin of the History of Medicine, vol. 21, no. 6, 1947, pp. 898–904. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/44442927. Accessed 21 June 2020.

[2] – O’Neill, Hugh. “Botanical Observations on the Voynich MS.” Speculum, vol. 19, no. 1, 1944, pp. 126–126. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2856859. Accessed 21 June 2020.

[3] – Brumbaugh, Robert S. “Botany and the Voynich ‘Roger Bacon’ Manuscript Once More.” Speculum, vol. 49, no. 3, 1974, pp. 546–548. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2851756. Accessed 2 July 2020.

[4] – Brumbaugh, Robert S. “The Solution of the Voynich ‘Roger Bacon’ Cipher.” The Yale University Library Gazette, vol. 49, no. 4, 1975, pp. 347–355. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40859496. Accessed 21 June 2020.

[5] – Brumbaugh, Robert S. “The Voynich ‘Roger Bacon’ Cipher Manuscript: Deciphered Maps of Stars.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, vol. 39, 1976, pp. 139–150. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/751135. Accessed 2 July 2020.

[6] – BRUMBAUGH, ROBERT S. “THE VOYNICH CIPHER MANUSCRIPT: A CURRENT REPORT.” The Yale University Library Gazette, vol. 61, no. 3/4, 1987, pp. 92–95. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40858909. Accessed 2 July 2020.

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

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

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

Historical Sources for Jesus Christ

This article contains a collection of historical sources which mention Jesus Christ. Biblical sources are not included.

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

Josephus (37-100). Antiquities, Book 18, Chapter 3 & Book 20, Chapter 9.1, Section 200.

Tacitus (56-120). Annals, Book 15, Chapter 44.

Pliny the Younger (c.61-c.113). Pliny’s Letter to Trajan.

Suetonius (c.69-after c.122). Twelve Caesars, Claudius 25 & Nero 16.

Mara bar Serapion (unknown lifespan, possibly 2nd half of the first century, but no later than 200 AD). The Letter to his son.

Lucian of Samosata (c.125-after 180). The Passing of Peregrinus, 11-13.

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

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

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is aa687bd6-a16e-4282-99cd-75d0bc130951.jpg

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

Links for Studying the Historicity of Jesus Christ

This article contains a collection of links for studying the historicity of (or lack thereof) Jesus Christ.

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

Finding Jesus in the Bible

Historical Sources for Christianity

Historical Sources for Jesus Christ

List of People Who Argued Jesus Christ is a Myth

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

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

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is aa687bd6-a16e-4282-99cd-75d0bc130951.jpg

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

%d bloggers like this: