Thursday, December 10, 2009

History: Fiction or Science?

Product Description
`History: Fiction or Science?` is the most explosive tractate on history and chronology ever written.

This book is not another conspiracy theory - every hypothesis it contains is backed by solid scientific data.

The book is well-illustrated, contains 446 graphs and illustrations, copies of ancient manuscripts, and countless facts attesting to the falsity of the chronology used nowadays.

You will be amazed to discover: - That the chronology universally taken for granted is indeed wrong; - That this chronology was essentially invented in the XVI-XVII century; - That archaeological, dendrochronological, paleographical and carbon methods of dating of ancient sources and artefacts known today are erroneous or non-exact; - That there is not a single document that could be reliably dated earlier than the XIth century; - That Ancient Rome, Greece and Egypt were crafted during the Renaissance by humanists and clergy; - That Jesus Christ may have been born in 1053 and crucified in 1086 AD; - That the Old Testament is probably a rendition of Middle Ages events; - That the Old Europe is not as ancient as it claims.

Henry Ford once said: "History is more or less bunk". Leading Mathematician Anatoly Fomenko proved it.
From the Author
The historical discourse appears to enjoy unwavering popularity in an abundance of manifestations. However, we have to ask ourselves this: how often do we question the veracity of the dominating historical discourse? Could it be that the historical inveracities are really a lot graver than the ones inevitably resulting from temporal distance and entropy? What if the passions of Jesus Christ (as we may observe them in Mel Gibson’s rendition coming Christmas) took place in the XI-XII century AD and not in the first? And what if the walls of Troy – the ones that we’re bound to see stormed by Brad Pitt & Co in the nearest future – have really been located elsewhere? Could Troy be identified with Constantinople, for instance? Basically, the main idea behind this is that the chronological scale that we use nowadays is elongated to a great extent and completely arbitrarily, being a collation of several versions of one and the same temporal sequence that eventually became identified with several nonexistent historical periods. It isn’t too hard to label the results of our research "sensationalist drivel", and indeed that seems to be the number one argument offered by the venerable community of fundamentalist historians. However, if we are to think critically and employ both common sense and rationality to the fullest extent and not just nominally, remaining bound by our a priori views and opinions all the while, we shall see numerous holes, gaps, and blanks that the traditional version of history pretends not to notice.