Thread by @realUnnameable

This is really what we are looking at..he rightly calls out the Scaligerian shifting timeline, but then applies that model to all of the rest of history assuming we can base everything on written accounts alone. Ignoring archeological finds, linguistics, and architecture changes.

https://twitter.com/realUnnameable/status/1349823883503931392

In Fomenko's model we are to assume that Egypt and Byzantium existed at the same time but that the architecture and customs are to be chopped up to simply a different spoken visual languages.

He suggests that Osiris and Christ are the same person. Which is fine if you are speaking at a meta level like Jospeh Campbell does.

But Fomenko is literally suggesting that they all are the same person just different "reflections" grammatically speaking.

He also suggests that pharaoh Thutmose is the Ottoman ruler Mehmed II who is also the Roman emperor Theodosius..

Some even go further to claim that they are ALL also Muhammed the Prophet is Islam because of the similarity in Mehmed II's name.

This is heretical in the most literal sense to assume that Muhammed is / was depicted in all these different forms.

Granted I don't think it's Fomenko directly that makes this link to Muhammed but speaks to the methods he uses and how they are applied by his followers.

It's certainly an interesting mind exercise to be able to actually wrap your mind around his view contending that the ancient times and the middle ages are folded onto themselves shortening the timeline.

But that is neither here nor there..

Continuing..

travelatelier.com/blog/alexander…

He suggests that Charles V of Spain is also Ivan the Terrible.. Who some also suggest is Charlemagne because Charles V spoke French?

Continuing without Russian bot interference.

The way these people have responded to my "jew man bad" comment is really evident on how they are emotionally charged to the position they take.

I have no investment in this material other than looking for the truth. And how they responded to my critique should speak volumes.

If you cannot condense your position into something aside from an impenetrable 7 volume set that outlines your view of the world it's most likely wrong.

It's got some good points sprinkled in.. but the majority of it is bullshit..

No one that holds any view of history that matters thinks Fomenko's work is substantial.. I'm not saying his take on Scaliger is wrong.. but im saying the jumps that he makes from that point are.

This work is not new.. it's been around for 40 years..

The fact that no one has been able to concisely prove its factual on a point by point bases speaks for itself..

It's convoluted and it makes of history what it wants to prove the narrative it's trying to put forward.

I'm not sure if it was meant to be a type of soviet propaganda but the fact that people are lost in the minutia of the material seems to me to be suspect.

Anyone that reads the material should be able to see how the conclusions he makes are fantastical at best.

Why would people dismiss the collective knowledge built up over hundreds of years of our history in favor of 2 guys putting forward a narrative that is clearly Russian nationalism from 40 years ago?

Your "hunch" that history isn't what it seems is not a good enough reason to dismiss the work of mainline history in favor of this nonsense.

I'm done wasting time on this topic.. I've got a fair understanding of how Fomenko presents his version of history

I was with him until he started suggesting that all these different people were the same people and using that to collapse 1000 years of history.

It's bullshit and his parallelism is not accepted by the majority for good reason.

It has been relegated to the fringes and will stay there with whatever cult following it has amassed as it has for the last 40 years.

Tartaria is a meme campaign at best and should not be taken seriously by anyone that truly wants to understand world history as it was.