TrueLife - HISTORY: Fiction or Science # 5

Episode Date: May 30, 2021

One on One Video Call W/George https://tidycal.com/georgepmonty/60-minute-meetingSupport the show:https://www.paypal.me/Truelifepodcast?locale.x=en_US🚨🚨Curious about the future of psychedelics? Imagine if Alan Watts started a secret society with Ram Dass and Hunter S. Thompson… now open the door. Use Promocode TRUELIFE for Get 25% off monthly or 30% off the annual plan For the first yearhttps://www.district216.com/Transcript:http://anatolyfomenko.com/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_of_the_Spectaclehttps://youtu.be/3Say79Pcg8Ihttps://app.podscribe.ai/episode/70399806Speaker 0 (0s): Welcome back my friends, we are back again with our friend and a toll, a four Manco history Fiction or Science left off. Number four, the foundations of archeological methods have been based on the scallop Jerian chronology from the very beginning. Let us begin. 13.1, the ambiguity of archeological datings and their dependence on the existing chronology. The reader may inquire about the state of affairs concerning other methods of dating historical sources and artifacts use nowadays modern archeologists speak of the ignorant diggers of the previous centuries in painted tones. Since many artifacts have become defaced in the search for valuables, the archeologist count a a S Y S excavated 7,729 mounds in thee Vladimir sues doll area, a S S spits in has the following to say about it. When the items found in excavations in 1851 to 1854 came to the disposal of the <inaudible> sorry for the pronunciation guys, Rummy on Stev museum, they were a chaotic pile of materials with no markings whatsoever. And no one could tell which mound this or the other object had belonged to the grandiose excavations of 1851 through 1854 shall be mourned by the scientists for years to come. Nowadays, the excavation methods are a lot more advanced. However, applying them to ancient excavations is as impossibly is an impossibility. Since these have already been conducted by the diggers of the past, the basics of archeological dating methods are as follows. The best way of reducing the age of a given European culture is finding out which Egyptian dynasty, this European tribe traded with the findings of my son. I made Greek in the Egyptian mounds of the 18th and 19th dynasties allow the archeologist to consider the dynasty and the culture as contemporaries similar vessels are found later on in mice and I together with a particular kind of pin that is later also found in Germany near some urns, a similar urn is found near a finger together with the different kind of pen, which resembles the one found in Sweden in the so-called borrow of king Bjorn, which can thus be dated as a contemporary of the 18th, 19th Egyptian dining in his disease. However, it turns out that king Bjorn barrel could not have a belong to Bjorn king of the Vikings, a a well-known medieval character. Sure. Since it predates his time by about two millennia, firstly, one fails to understand what criteria of similarity have been used here. Secondly, and a lot more importantly, I might add all that all of these methods are heavily dependent on the all priority datings of the ancient Egyptian Pharaoh died. Dynasty's this method, which is also known as the Dominos method and all similar ones are based on pure <inaudible> subjectivism in that principally on a scale of Jerian chronology, newly found artifacts, such as vessels are compared to similar findings dated in accordance with the consensual chronology, the alteration of the chronological scale scale automatically alters the chronology of the new archeology findings and erroneous chronology, completely invalidates all such methods. It is a little wonder that the archaeologist investing there trust in such methods are constantly confronted with bizarre facts. It appears that in certain remote parts of India, Europe, what encounters, the coexistence of things whose prototype's in the east are separated from each other by centuries. These furthermore L S T a line firmly denies all connections between king Bjorn's Baro and the medieval Beorn king of the Vikings. This method tells us only that Bjorn borrow is contemporary to the 18th, 19th Egyptian dynasties. It tells us nothing about the possible datings and these actual rains, which may well be medieval along with Bjorn Viking. The first screen teams of Egyptian chronology were based on the work of monotheists who had compiled the list of the pharaohs, allegedly in the century, BC and grouped them into 30 dynasties. Having added up all the years of Raines and assuming that their rains have all been consecutive, the figures, he got proved, formidable, Flanders portray Elle Barnhart, and other Egyptologists had estimated the duration of the history of ancient Egypt to equal five to 6,000 years. This is how the long chronology of Egypt was born. The one that had been prevalent for a long time E Meier and his followers had developed a so-called a short chronology as an alternative. It's a problem is that the pharaohs and their entire dynasties often reigned simultaneously as COE ruler's in different parts of the country. Men, a Theone was making the assumption that the state had been a monolithic one under a single ruler. And so he had lined all of the Pharos in D sequence, and that was considerably extended. The entire history of the state. We should add that the short chronology of Egypt is still way too long and should really have been called a slightly shorter chronology. As we have already mentioned in reference to the data provided by the Egyptologist Henrik brew. Gosh, the so-called short chronology is also based on a theoretical foundations. We learned that its creator IE Meyer has based his deductions on the annual records and entries referring to memorable events made by the pharaohs themselves. However, this chain of knowledge has reached us as separate links with many gaps and distortions. This is why attaching the archeological and material to the Egyptian scale does not solve the problem of absolute or indeed even relative dating 13.2, the excavations of Pompei, the dating of this towns destruction, the excavations of the ancient town of Pompei are a perfect illustration to the problems that arise and the dating of archeological materials. First and foremost, it isn't clear which years eruption destroyed it. Apparently the 15th century author Jacopo son, a Xero wrote, we were approaching the town and could already see it's towers, houses, theatres, and temples untouched by the centuries. It is assumed however that the town of Pompei has gotten destroyed and completely buried after the eruption of nine a D. This is why the archeologists have to interpret sun a zero in the following manner. In the 15th century, some of the buildings of Pompei were already emerging from the debris. It is that assume that Pompei had been covered by a thick layer of earth. Since the ruins of the town were only found in 1748, and discovery was purely accident. Accidental Herculaneum was discovered in 1711. Nowadays the history of the discovery of Palm Pompei is related after the documented recollections of that epoch as follows during the construction of a canal on the river Sarno 1594 to 1600, th...

Darkness struck, a gut-punched theft, Sun ripped away, her health bereft. I roar at the void. This ain't just fate, a cosmic scam I spit my hate. The games rigged tight, shadows deal, blood on their hands, I'll never kneel. Yet in the rage, a crack ignites, occulted sparks cut through the nights. The scar's my key, hermetic and stark. To see, to rise, I hunt in the dark, fumbling, fear. Fearist through ruins maze lights my war cry born from the blaze.

The poem is Angels with Rifles. The track, I Am Sorrow, I Am Lust by Codex Serafini. Check out the entire song at the end of the cast. Welcome back, my friends. We are back again with our friend Anatole Famanko history, fiction or science. We left off. Number four, the foundations of archaeological methods have been based on the Scaligerian chronology from the very beginning. Let us begin. 13.1. The ambiguity of archaeological datings and their dependence on the existing chronology. The reader may inquire about the state of affairs concerning other methods of dating historical sources and artifacts used nowadays.

Modern archaeologists speak of the ignorant diggers of the previous centuries in painted tones. Since many artifacts have become defaced in the search for valuables, the archaeologist count A.S. Orvois excavated 7,729 mounds in the Vladimir Suzdal area. A. S. Spitsyn has the following to say about it. When the items found in excavations of 1851 to 1854 came to the disposal of the Rumaiaast... Sorry for the pronunciation, guys. Remyon Steve Museum.

they were a chaotic pile of materials with no markings whatsoever, and no one could tell which mound this or the other object had belonged to. The grandiose excavations of 1851 through 1854 shall be mourned by the scientists for years to come. Nowadays, the excavation methods are a lot more advanced. However, applying them to ancient, excavations is as impossibly, is an impossibility, since these have already been conducted by the diggers of the past. The basics of archaeological dating methods are as follows. The best way of deducing the age of a given European culture is finding out which Egyptian dynasty this European tribe traded with. The findings of Mycenae-made Greek vessels in the Egyptian mounds of the 18th and 19th dynasties allow the archaeologists to consider the dynasty and the culture as contemporaries.

Similar vessels are found later on in Mycenine together with a particular kind of pin that is later also found in Germany near some urns. A similar urn is found near Fanger, together with a different kind of thing. pen, which resembles the one found in Sweden, in the so-called Barrow of King Bjorn, which can thus be dated as a contemporary of the 18th-19th Egyptian dynasties. However, it turns out that King Bjorn Barrow could not have belonged to Bjorn, King of the Vikings, a well-known medieval character, since it predates his time by about two millennia. Firstly, one fails to unlawful. understand what criteria of similarity have been used here. Secondly, and a lot more importantly,

I might add, all of these methods are heavily dependent on the a priori datings of the ancient Egyptian pharaoh dynasties. This method, which is also known as the Domino's method, and all similar ones are based on pure, undulterated subjectivity. and principally on Scaligerian chronology. Newly found artifacts such as vessels are compared to similar findings dated in accordance with the consensual chronology. The alteration of the chronological scale automatically alters the chronology of the new archaeology findings. And erroneous chronology completely invalidates all such methods.

it is little wonder that the archaeologists investing their trust in such methods are constantly confronted with bizarre facts. It appears that in certain remote parts of Europe one encounters the coexistence of things whose prototypes in the East are separated from each other by centuries. Furthermore, L.S. Klein firmly denies all connections between King Bjorn's borrow, and the medieval Bjorn, king of the Vikings. This method tells us only that Bjorn Barrow is contemporary to the 18th-19th Egyptian dynasties. It tells us nothing about the possible datings of these actual reigns, which may well be medieval, along with Bjorn, the Viking. The first schemes of Egyptian chronology were based on the work of Manetheon, who had compiled the list of the pharaoh. allegedly in the 3rd century BC

and grouped them into 30 dynasties having added up all the years of reigns and assuming that their reigns have all been consecutive the figures he got proved formidable Flinders portray L. Bornhart and other Egyptologists had estimated the duration of the history of ancient Egypt to equal five to six thousand years.

This is how the long chronology of Egypt was born, the one that had been prevalent for a long time. E. Meyer and his followers had developed the so-called short chronology as an alternative. The problem is that the pharaohs and their entire dynasties often reigned simultaneously as co-rulers in different parts of the country. Manateaeon was making the assumption that the state had been a monolithic one under a single ruler, and so he had lined all of the pharaohs into sequence, and thus considerably extended the entire history of the state.

We should add that the short chronology of Egypt is still way too long, and should really have been called a slightly shorter chronology. As we have already mentioned in reference to the data provided by the, the Egyptologist Henrik Brugash, the so-called short chronology, is also based on ethereal foundations. We learned that its creator, E. Meyer, has based his deductions on the annual records and entries referring to memorable events made by the pharaohs themselves. However, this chain of knowledge has reached us as separate links, with many gaps and distortions. This is why attaching the archaeological material to the Egyptian scale does not solve the problem of

absolute or indeed even relative dating. 13.2. The excavations of Pompeii, the dating of this town's destruction. The excavations of the ancient town of Pompeii are a perfect illustration to the problems that arise in the dating of archaeological materials. First and foremost, it isn't clear which year's eruption destroyed it. Apparently the 15th century author Jacapo Sanazaro wrote, We were approaching the town and could already see its towers,

houses, theaters, and temples untouched by the centuries. It is assumed, however, that the town of Pompeii has got destroyed and completely buried after the eruption of 79 AD. This is why the archaeology have to interpret Sanazaro in the following manner.

In the 15th century, some of the buildings of Pompeii were already emerging from the debris. It is thus assumed that Pompey had been covered by a thick layer of earth since the ruins of the town were only found in 1748, and the discovery was purely accidental. Herculaneum was discovered in 1711. Nowadays, the history of the discovery of Pompeii, is related after the documented recollections of that epoch as follows. During the construction of a canal on the river Sarno, 1594 to 1600, the ruins of an ancient town were found. Nobody had the merest notion it might be Pompeii.

Methodical scientific excavations were started as late as 1860 by Giuseppe Fiorelli. However, his method of work was far from the usual. scientific standards. The excavations were indeed conducted in a barbaric manner. Nowadays, it is hard to estimate the damage done by the sheer vandalism of the time if somebody thought a picture or a figurine wasn't artful enough or visually pleasing. It would become destroyed and thrown away as trash. Sculpture fragments had been sold as souvenirs, often as statuettes of saints. Some of these Christian forgeries may have been medieval originals

that did not fit the Scaligerian chronology, and hence wound up sold as souvenirs instead of becoming part of a museum's collection. If one's cogitation is to be confined within the paradigm of the Scaligerian chronology, the artistic level of the artifacts found in Pompeii is very high, indeed, be it frescoes, inlays, or statues. The state of science is also deemed advanced enough to correspond to that of the Renaissance epic. One of the findings was a sundial with uniform hourly divisions, which were considered a high level of precision even towards the end of the Middle Ages.

This finding was analyzed by in a Morazov, an ancient picture. of a part of such a device that had been found on a villa near the town of Pompeii can still be seen in figure 1.47. V. Klosvsky wrote that a set of surgical instruments has been discovered. That is all the more noteworthy since some of the items have been previously supposed to belong to the modern times, discovered and introduced by the scientific avant-garde of the operative medicine. Some of the graffiti art found on the walls of Pompeii is clearly medieval in its origin. For instance, the picture of a hooded henchman in figure 1.48, we see a medieval henchman that drags his victim, a man in a cape, onto a scaffold with a rope. V. Klausowski tells us this is a

copy from a drawing made on plaster with some sharp object. Another drawing that is definitely worthy of our attention is that of a medieval warrior wearing a helmet with a visor. Figure 1.49. These two drawings are but a small part of the Papayan graffiti that is explicitly medieval in its concept. One should mark the illustrations that one sees on page 44. Figure 1.5, nowadays we are told that it portrays ancient gladiators.

However, what we see is clearly a medieval knight with a visor on his helmet. This is well-known military equipment of the Middle Ages. V. Klazowski sums up his general impression of the excavations of Pompeii as follows. I have been amazed many a time to find that ancient Pompeian artifacts often proved to be spitting images of the objects of a much later epic. Page 133. We also found out that according to Klosovsky,

many of the famous Pompeian inlays bear an amazing resemblance to the medieval frescoes of Raphael and Giuliani Romano in composition, coloring, and style. To put it simply, they look like medieval frescoes. An example of such an inlay

can be seen. in figure 1.51. This is assumed to be the ancient battle of Alexander the Great and the Persian king Darius. The inlay was discovered in 1831 and is now in the domain of the National Museum of Naples. V. Klosvowski's comment runs as follows. On the floor of the trichlinium, one sees the famous mosaic from colored stone, which now crowns the collection of the museum in Naples. The coloring and the technique are unparalleled. The composition may well be compared to the best works of Raphael. And Giuliana Romano. It is most remarkable indeed that there should be a semblance between the work of the anonymous ancient artists of Raphael.

Raphael's battle between Constantine and Maxentius and style and the composition of the main group certain decorations of the Roman Thermae of Titus bear amazing resemblance to some of Raphael's frescoes as well. The Scaligerian history, as followed by Klasvsky, tries to convince us that all these works of ancient art were created in the first century AD, the latest, and have remained buried until very recently

when the excavations of Pompeii finally began. Raphael, Giuliani Romano, and other artists of the Renaissance are supposed to have created paintings strongly resembling the ancient originals. Without even having seen them, all of this is highly suspicious. The hypothesis that we put forward is as follows. Pompeii is a medieval town of the Renaissance epoch. It has been destroyed by one of the relatively recent eruptions of Vesuvius. The ancient Pompeian artists were contemporaries of Raphael and Romano, hence the stylistic semblances.

Pompeii might have been destroyed and buried by ashes during the well-known eruption of the Vesuvius that occurred in 1500, or even by the eruption of 1631. Most of the Pompeian graffiti cannot be used for dating purposes, such as quotidian announcement slang. However, some of the inscriptions explicitly contradict the Scaligerian chronology. One of them can be found in figure 389, and was translated by N.A. Morozov as follows, The Hunt and the decorations of Valentinus Nero Augustus, the Holy Son of the Holy Son of the Holy I Lucretius Valentus the Eminent the 28th of March We run into a contradiction between the Scaligerian history

and actual inscriptions discovered as a result of excavations An emperor with the double name of Valentus Nero is mentioned here whereas in Scaligerian chronology these names belong to two different emperors separated by about 300 years A longer version of the same ancient announcement referring to the pageants of 6th through 12th April can be seen in 873, figure 1.52. The translation of Farid by V. Fyodorova separates Nero from Valentas as we had expected. We had no opportunity of checking the authority of both translations.

Artifacts of the Christian epoch have been found in the ancient town of Herculaneum in figures 1.53. For instance, one can see a Christian chapel discovered during the excavations of Herculaneum with a large cross on the wall. 13.3. The allegedly accelerated destruction of the ancient monuments. The archaeologists of the 20th century have noticed a rather odd tendency. The overwhelming majority of the ancient monuments report deterioration in their condition that allegedly started two or 300 years ago. From the moment their study began, in other words, and has become more intense than during the preceding centuries and even millennia.

The examples are widely known. The theater of Epidorus, Parthenon, the Coliseum, the Palaces of Venice, etc. Here's another example in the form of an article from the Izvestia newspaper, October 31, 1981, A Sphinx in Peril. A famous figure of the Elgiza Sphinx in Egypt has stood steadfast for five millennia. However, pollution has afflicted it terribly. A large piece of the sculpture, a paw, has fallen off. The reasons for this are as follows, high humidity, salty ground,

and primarily the accumulation of sewage around the sphinx that isn't filtered in any way at all. It is nevertheless supposed to have stood for 5,000 years without any problems whatsoever. This condition of deterioration is usually explained by the negative effect of modern industry. However, as far as we know, there has been no quantitative research conducted to this day as to whether or not modern industry afflicts ancient construction made of stone. One logically assumes all of these buildings to be a lot more recent than what the Scaligerian chronology tells us. They are subject to erosion and have a constant natural destruction rate, which is rather high. All right, I'm going to deviate from this book for just a moment because I think there's something really relevant in another book I have reading that dovetails with it.

And this book is called The Spectacle of Society by Guide to Board. Let me read you this passages. And I think it will really help put a pin in some of the theories by Anatoly Famenko. Reasoning about history is inseparably reasoning about power. Greece was the moment when power and its change were discussed and understood. the democracy of the masters of society. Greek conditions were the inverse of the conditions known to the despotic state where power settles its accounts only with itself within the inaccessible obscurity of its densest point

through Palace Revolution, which is placed beyond the pale of discussion by success or failure alike. However, the power shared among the Greek communities existed only, with the expenditure of a social life whose production remains separate and static within the servile class. Only those who do not work live. In the division among the Greek communities and in the struggle to exploit foreign cities, the principle of separation which internally grounded each of them was externalized. Greece, which had dreamed of universal history, this is important.

Greece, which had dreamed of universal history, did not succeed in unifying itself in the face of invasion, or even in unifying the calendars of its independent cities. In Greece, historical time became conscious, but not yet conscious of itself. After the disappearance of the locally favorable conditions known to the Greek communities, the regression of Western historical thought was not accompanied by a rehabilitation of ancient mythic organizations. Out of the confrontations of the Mediterranean populations,

out of the formation and collapse of the Roman state appeared semi-historical religions, which became fundamental factors in the new consciousness of time and in the new armor of separate power. The monotheistic religions were a compromise between myth and history, between cyclical time, which still dominated production and irreversible time, where populations clash and regroup. The religions which grew out of Judaism are abstract. universal acknowledgments of irreversible time, which is democratized, open to all,

but in the realm of illusion, time is totally oriented toward a single final event. The kingdom of God is at hand. Okay, that may be difficult for some people to listen to only once and understand. In fact, for me, reading it multiple times, highlighting it, and then rereading it, and then re-reheaval. reading it out loud has really only helped me to graze the very top of meaning of these two books. Let me try to paraphrase what the hell I think is happening. History, according to Mazuroff, according to what we've been reading in history or fiction, Anatoly Famenko points out some unbelievable points about the Scalinger dating,

which is completely fraudulent. and when we compare it with the passages I just read, we can understand and even underscore the points Anatoly Famenco is making. He is making the claim that the Greeks and the Romans actually were the Renaissance. The medieval times were the Greek and Roman times. And in this other book, Society of the Spectacle, we understand from this book, why that would be done.

And the why is about power. The why is the fundamental understanding of the ruling class and the how and why. We finally get to understand that and is brought to us by Guy to Board in his book.

What they're saying is the basic tenant of Orwell's greatest quote. And that quote is he who control the present, controls the past. And he who controls the past controls the future. What's happened, what Anatoly Famenco is illustrating to me, at least, in my opinion, is that

this was not only a hostile takeover or the foundation for the ruling elite to take over forever, but it was a fundamental shift in the way we understand time. Time, ladies and gentlemen, this was the time we became slaves. The dark ages, the middle ages, was the time the average person was no longer free. You see, think about what it means to control history. think about the amount of power that gives you if I can say if I can write down in a book that your mom and dad were king

well there's the history forever you've gone you've actually done time traveling because you've gone back and written things down that are bullshit and don't even exist but after a while no one knows nobody knows it's the greatest theft on earth and it's not so much a theft of material things.

It's a fundamental theft in everyone's life. Like they've robbed us of our faculties. Think about this. Think about what does it mean to you to have free time? To me it means I can do whatever I want. Hey, I finally got some free time. Sometimes we tell children, after you finish doing this, you can have free time. If you're an adult and you have a job, it's your time.

When you're at a job, when you are working for someone else, when you are working to commodify the world, even if it's your own business, that's not your time. The only way you can have free time, think about this concept. The only way you can have free time is, is your own time. if you have time that isn't yours. The concept of free time comes from having time that is not yours. The very tenant free time means there was a time when you weren't free. You get it? And this is what history is all about.

History, think about the etymology of history. H-I-S-T-O-R-Y. His story. his story his story history it's all bullshit folks all of it

it's all bullshit I know I'm kind of getting out in the woods here and I'm going to get back to Anatoly Famenco because I know that's what people are tuning in for but it's very difficult for me to not just explode in

not anger but this explode and understand When you begin to understand that everything you've been told your whole life is bullshit, I'll tell you what, it kind of has a crazy effect on you. And you start thinking, why? Why would they do that? Why?

To control your mind, right? To control not only your mind, but to control and enslave everybody forever. Think about the way... Another point this guy is. making is that the monotheistic religions were a compromise between myth and history, right? We know that the Greeks and Romans were not monotheists. They had all the gods on Mount Olympus, and that's not even counting the people that weren't part of the Roman Empire that believed in the, you know, the gods of the earth and Pan and all these different gods that were,

the gods of the barbarians, if you will. So, What the Judaic religions, what the medieval times, and what the Scalinger dating has done to the minds of men, is fundamentally change the way we understand the concept of time. according to guide aboard the romans the greeks prior to the renaissance if that's even real they experience time as the as a journey as one travels through time one is traveling on a journey A boy grows to be a man. A man grows to be a husband and a provider who grows to be a scholar, who grows to be an elderly man

and then moves on to the next level, whatever that level is. But they experienced and not only experienced but celebrated the very passage of time. Milestones. There were rights of path. Think of the term right of passage. the way people experienced time

was a celebratory journey once mysticism and the the the Mount Olympus gods once there was a compromise to have monotheism time changed

because now it's not celebrating the journey of time. Now what's happening is like a race to the end. Instead of celebrating the journey you're on, you are running out of time. It's no longer a journey. Now it is a time for you to get things done before you die. That simple shift, that very simple way of being taught what time is, what has enslaved us. And that is why the Scalinger dating was important. And that's why this grand, unbelievable attempt to create history was born. And think for a moment about the frescoes that were painted,

the sculptures that were done when we as free men were able to celebrate the passage of time. When we as men and women of this world could celebrate the passage of time, we can create great works of art. We can create beauty. We can create divine mathematical formulas that help us understand the world. When we look at time through the lens of irreversible time, and by irreversible time, I mean you're born. God is waiting for you and the king of kings is waiting in heaven and you can't go back and you better get all these things done before you go on to die. Under this version of history, we ourselves have become the commodity. We have become enslaved to time. It's no longer

something that we celebrate. It's something we fear. Okay. Thank you for letting me get that out. I think it's really relevant. At least it is to me. We're going over all this different stuff from Anatoli Famenko and Mazurov and we're pointing out the actual dates and pictures. And for me, I just wanted to share that with you guys because that's what makes sense to me. It's, it's been blowing my goddamn mind about this concept of time and this is the first time I've put this together so I'm really excited that I got to get

kind of get out all my feelings and I hope that those of you are taking the time to listen to what I'm saying can thoroughly understand what the fuck I'm talking about I love you guys if you want to read the other book

it's called The Spectacle of Society by guide to board and it is mind-blowing Okay, let me now get back to what you've been waiting for. 13.4. When did the construction of the Cologne Cathedral really begin? Nowadays we are being told that the construction of the famous Cologne Cathedral carried on for several centuries. It is assumed that the construction began in the fourth century.

After that, the cathedral has allegedly been rebuilt many times. And nothing remained from the original cathedrals whatsoever. The construction of the Gothic cathedral is supposed to have commenced in 1248. Some sources even mention the exact date as the 15th of August 1248. It is further assumed that the construction was finished for the most part by the 16th century, circa 1560. After that, this gigantic medieval cathedral has allegedly undergone minor renovations, but by and large, its shape remained unaltered.

How valid is this point of view? When was the cathedral that we can see today really constructed? Is the construction that we see truly medieval, dating from the 13th to the 16th century for the most part. In figures 1.55, we can see a schematic drawing from a technical brochure that demonstrates which parts of the cathedral are medieval and which ones were built over the last two centuries. The full name of the brochure is Gaffar Ferdin-Cormor-Dome, Professor Dr. Arnold Wolf. The dome of Cologne is in danger. Graphic documents on weathering. It was originally addressed to professionals specializing in the preservation and restoration of stone constructions. It was printed in

Cologne and can be obtained inside the cathedral. According to the scheme, the oldest part of the mish, the masonry, that which belongs to the years 1248 to 1560 is represented by a horizontal shading. The rest shown by seven other kinds of shading, such as diagonal, dotted, et cetera, was constructed a lot later, after 1826. Amazingly enough, the oldest part of the masonry, the horizontal shading, amounts to a small part of the modern edifice. Really, it only covers half of the cathedral's foundation, and even this small medieval fragment is not whole, since it consists of two parts that are pretty distant from each other. Figures 1.55.

The rest of the masonry, that is the major part of the entire modern edifice, only appeared in the early 14th century. The absence of masonry dating to 1560 to 1825 is particularly suspicious. Does it mean that there were no works at all conducted in 250 years, or that they did not affect the structure of the cathedral in any way worth of mentioning? What German historians and architects are telling us in this manner is that the cathedral that we see today was essentially built in the 16th century. By what criteria does Scaligerian history call it a medieval cathedral? Someone might say that despite the fact that the cathedral was built in the 16th century, it should still faithfully represent the medieval original that has stood there ever since, the 13th. century. We would like to ask the groundwork for this hypothesis. Are there any genuine medieval graphical representations of the Cologne Cathedral before the 16th century? Apparently, there

are none. The same brochure by Arnold Wolf contains an engraved, dated, an engraving dated 1834 to 1836 that depicts the cathedral pretty much the way it is nowadays. The album, 1017, contains what appears to be the oldest picture of the cathedral on page 21, dating from 1809. We consider all of this to mean that the construction of the cathedral in its present form has only commenced in the 16th century, which is proven by the masonry scheme, masonry scheme as shown above. The cathedral was built between 1825 and 1835 for the most part, and the engraving, dated from 1834 to 1836 reflected the final stages

of the cathedral's construction. There were renovations done in the 16th through 20th century but no major changes. I'm sorry. There were renovations done in the 19th through 20th century

but no major changes. There were some traces of an ancient building on the site of the modern cathedral since some mysterious Masonry dating from 1248 to 1560 is present on the scheme. However, this very scheme explicitly tells us that the medieval masonry was used as building material in the 16th century construction.

Let us study figure 1.55 yet again. The lower part of the left tower is made of stones dating from the 16th century, laced with layers dating from the 18th through 19th century. The upper part, I'm sorry, I fucked that up. The lower part of the left tower is made of stones dating from the 19th century, laced with layers dating from the 13th through the 16th century. The upper part of this tower is a construction of the 19th century, and the same is true for the other tower.

The old medieval building that had stood on the place of the modern cathedral was deconstructed in the 19th century, its masonry used as construction material for the new edifice. We would like to pose the following questions to the historians and the archaeologists. Are there any genuine medieval pictures of either the Cologne Cathedral or its predecessor that had existed before the 17th century?

Does the modern Cologne Cathedral bear any resemblance to the medieval cathedral that had stood on the same site before the 19th century. Our hypothesis is that if there has really been a cathedral here, it was significantly different from the modern one. A great deal smaller, for one thing. Why are there no traces of masonry dating to the period between 1560 and 1825 in the walls of the modern Cologne Cathedral?

Doesn't this mean that the construction, really commenced in the 19th century on the spot that had been previously occupied by a building of smaller proportions dating from the 13th to the 16th century one should also question the reasons for dating the old masonry to the 13th through 16th century these stones may well belong to the 13th they will i am sorry guys i'm I'm getting tired. These stones may well belong to the 17th through 18th century. Another inquiry that we find worthy of making concerns, the methods used by modern archaeologists for dating masonry fragments. How can they be certain that a given stone was used for the construction of a cathedral wall in the year

that they consider to be the correct dating and not some other? We conclude with a general observation concerning the unnaturally prolonged construction of many historical buildings of medieval Europe. According to Scaligerian history, they were built very slowly, indeed, for centuries on end. The Straussburg Cathedral is a perfect example. It used to be the tallest building in Europe. We are now being told that its construction began in 1015 and ended as late as 1275. That makes 260 years. The Irvin von Steinbeck Power allegedly took 162 years to build.

The historian, Cole Rausch, makes the logical conclusion that the entire edifice of the cathedral took 424 years to build. Almost half a millennium? Colerosh also couldn't have missed the unnaturally procrastinated construction of the Cologne Cathedral. Apparently realizing the necessity of explaining such unnaturally extended terms, he offers the following as a theory. The Cologne Cathedral, whose construction began in 1248 and lasted for 250 years, such tardiness can be explained by the fact that its stones bear a great amount of artwork. As we are beginning to understand, artwork has got absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand. It is the erroneous Scaligerian chronology that has arbitrarily extended the construction period into several centuries. Archaeological methods are most often based on Scaligerian datings.

13.5. The modern methods of archaeological dating rely on the Scalegarian chronology to a great extent and may often lead the researcher to great errors. which are blatantly obvious in some cases. Let us give a few examples. The excavation of a barrow that was dated with absolute certainty to the epoch of Kiev, Russia, the alleged 9th through 11th century.

According to the archaeological method occurred relatively recently, however, 19th century coins were found in the same borrow among the bones. This is mentioned in the article, by the bilo-russian historian Zyklavsky. He published in 97 in the 12th issue of the Almanac of History and Archaeology on page 83. It is clear that the coins could not have made their way into the borough by chance. Is there an explanation? As a matter of fact, there is.

And a simple one at that. The ancient borrow belongs to the 19th century, and there is nothing surprising about it, since the pagan church, also known as Romish, had existed in Russia and Bialo Russia until the 20th century, complete with specific burial rights. The center of the Romish church had been in the Bilo-Russian village of Romy. In the 19th century, it had possessed an archbishop, more than 100 parishes, and a special language used by priests and sacraments. There is a 19th century volume containing a detailed description of this old,

Russian pagan church. Another example, a different borough is being excavated and the archaeologist make another perfectly certain dating that ascribes it to the Bronze Age. The ground under the barrow had been virgin until the hole that preceded the borough had been dug. Some 18th century ceramics were found in this hole. It could only have got there during the burial. This is yet another case of the archaeologist using scientific methods. for the dating of the 18th century mound of the Bronze Age,

or the time when the rather inexperienced humanity could not have fathomed the intricacies of iron metallurgy. But the 18th century was a period when both iron and steel were already known quite well. This borough only got dated to the Bronze Age since it hadn't contained any steel or iron items. In the cases described, the boroughs contained objects that contradicted their initial datings. If there are no such objects, the archaeologists date the boroughs scientifically to times immemorial. The very method of archaeological dating appears extremely flawed and wholly dependent on the a priori known Scaligerian chronology. It blows my mind, ladies and gentlemen, the lack of...

of critical thinking by people today. Like, what the fuck are we doing? You know how many people just listen to TV or listen to the radio and, like, believe everything coming out of there? Like, I don't like it. I don't understand it. Like, what, why?

Why? That's all I got, guys. I'm gonna try to whip it out more I'm on vacation this week, so I've had a lot of calls to finish this series, and we are only, a quarter of the way through this book.

So we're going to be powering down. I'm going to try to break them down into bite-sized chunks and get some more out there for you guys. Thank you very much for your time, spending a little bit of time with me listening to me. And thank God for every single one of you listening to this. You are the future. You are the resistance.

You are the fucking only people thinking out there. I love you. I love you. I love you. I love you. Thank you.