Fomenko’s New Chronology – Ctruth
Fomenko’s New Chronology
Links
The History: https://ctruth.today/2019/05/26/the-history-of-fomenkos-new-chronology/
The Bibliography: https://ctruth.today/2019/02/03/bibliography-of-fomenkos-new-chronology/
The Examination: https://ctruth.today/2020/10/01/examining-fomenkos-new-chronology/
Fomenko’s Books on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which means if you buy one of the books below, I get a little money too at no extra cost to you.
Volume 1: https://amzn.to/3yoa38d
Volume 2: https://amzn.to/3NTb4e4
Volume 3: https://amzn.to/3OSVAIF
Volume 4: https://amzn.to/3Rok7ae
Volume 5: https://amzn.to/3yusSH7
Volume 6: https://amzn.to/3z0ySsF
Introduction
Fomenko’s New Chronology argues that the dawn of human civilization occurred about 1200 years before present, in what we consider the 9th-10th century.[1] It is largely based upon dates allegedly obtained through textual analysis and astronomical calculation.
Along with arguing for a shortened chronology they argue that an intentional falsification of history took place in the 1600s-1800s.
They argue that most historical records are authentic but that the interpretation of them has been largely and intentionally distorted.
They claim don’t claim to have found any final conclusions but they do believe the methods of history, archaeology, philology, physics, chemistry, and, mathematics can help solve the problems they’ve found.[4, p.xii]
Fomenko’s New Chronology was one of the main reasons that I created Ctruth. From the outset, I’ve wanted to know which parts of Fomenko’s New Chronology are valid and which parts are not. While I’ve come a long way in determining the extent of its validity, I’m still working on a comprehensive analysis of it and I encourage people who are interested in the sciences and humanities (wetenschap) to join in as well. I have some instructions here on how to help.
Fomenko’s New Chronology is almost 50 years in the making. My serious studies into it really began when I made this website on January 2nd, 2019. Since then, my studies into Fomenko’s New Chronology have become increasingly more critical and rigorous than when I first began.
I do not believe in Fomenko’s New Chronology. My thoughts on what’s legit and not legit are spelled out in my examination articles.
Anatoly Fomenko (1945-present) began his research on chronology in 1973, was publishing it in scientific magazines in the 1980’s, and began publishing it in books in the 1990’s. The original analysis was conducted on 15 chronological tables and 228 fundamental primary sources which covered all of the basic events of world history between 4000 BC and 1800 AD. His 7 volume series for which he is known in the English speaking world came out in the early 2000s.
The popular notion is that human civilization dawned maybe 6-10 thousand years ago. Fomenko’s New Chronology condenses this down to 1200 years ago by arguing the events of civilization were artificially placed further back in time by shifts of roughly 333 years, 1053 years, and 1778 years.[2, p.xiii] The 3 shifts have also been listed by Fomenko as roughly 330, 1050, and 1800 years.[3] These shifts are illustrated in Fomenko’s Global Chronological Diagram (GCD).[4, p.8]
References:
[1] – "How It Was In Reality". https://chronologia.org/en/how_it_was/introduction.html. Accessed 24 Mar. 2021.
[2] – "Empirico-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Material and its Applications to Historical Dating, Volume II: The Analysis of Ancient and Medieval Records" (1994). http://chronologia.org/en/kw2.pdf. Accessed 24 Mar. 2021.
[3] – "FRAGMENTS OF THE GLOBAL CHRONOLOGICAL MAP OF A.T.FOMENKO" http://chronologia.org/en/gcm/index.html. Accessed 24 Mar. 2021.
[4] – "Empirico-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Material and its Applications to Historical Dating, Volume I: The Development of the Statistical Tools" (1994). http://chronologia.org/en/kw1.pdf. Accessed 24 Mar. 2021.
[5] – Molot, Stepan. "A Summary of the Foundations of the New Chronology of Fomenko-Nosovsky". https://chronologia.org/lib/molot/15.html#k19. Accessed 16 Apr. 2022.
"Of course, the research described here cannot claim to establish any final conclusions, especially since we have used purely mathematical methods to analyze what is really very complicated, multifaceted and sometimes subjectively embellished material from the historical chronicles. Without doubt, a complete treatment of the problem requires a combination of different methods, including those of pure history, archaeology, philology, physics, chemistry, and, finally, mathematics…"
– A. T. Fomenko (1994)[2, p.xii]
"I cannot at all agree with the hypothesis of Morozov, according to which most literary works of antiquity are fabrications of the Apocrypha of the Renaissance, which would mean that what we know today as ancient history is actually the result of premeditated falsification. … My standpoint is different, namely that, due to the results of the application of the new dating methods, almost all surviving ancient documents (of antiquity or the Middle Ages) are authentic and written for the purpose of perpetuating real events rather than leading future historians astray."
– A. T. Fomenko (1994)[4, p.196]
16 Comments on "Fomenko’s New Chronology"
-
The truth can never be destroyed. Thanks for sharing this truth with us. Well done interview with Mel.
Liked by 1 person
-
Looking away from this planet, we may find answers.
We know that the story of how the solar system came to be is not consistent, internally. I have found that the idea that stars make matter is more likely than a big bang. There is also an issue with how and where planets are formed.
Using x ray sensitive sensors there is an intriguing picture of the galaxies. They are joined togheter by plasma. These Filaments are formed from some origin, but they possess magnetic and electrical force, in an alternating current, AC. That means that there is periodic polarity reversal. We know that the Sun has a polarity reversal, approximately every 11 years so a full cycle is twice that. It seems that our sub filament attached to our galaxy has a frquency of that number, squared. So roughly every 500 years.
Like
-
Hi, I had a question from the administrator of this site
Do you know a book against Fimenko chronology
I’m looking for a book that is against Fomenko’s words and has been criticized
Liked by 1 person
-
Hi, I think there are some books in Russian that attempt to do this but I’m not sure how legitimate they are
I’m not aware of any in English that focus on criticizing Fomenko
Like
-
-
I was able to download the first 5 volumes of Fomenko’s book. I am looking for volumes 6 and 7 to download. Please help me where to find (6 and 7)?
Like
-
Have you also read the works of Edwin Johnson, particularly "The Pauline Epistles" and "The Rise of English Culture"?
Chronology rests on people needing to believe. The idea that 400-450 years ago a group of people created the entire chronological framework, and they screwed it up, is more than most people can handle.
And yet, that appears to be exactly what happened. Rather than asking/examining where Scaliger, Kalwitz etc. went wrong, "experts" today double-down on the "Sacred Chronology".
The best argument against the Chronology is to read the works of the people who created the thing. People like Jean Boden…Like
-
I’ve read most of The Rise of English Culture, parts of The Pauline Epistles.
Like
-
In my opinion, "Dead Sea Scrolls" shows that the fake did not happen, Edward’s words are wrong
Like
-
-
Has Fomenko said anything about "Dead Sea Scrolls"? I think all of Fomenko’s claims are invalidated by the "Dead Sea Scrolls"
Because these scrolls are so old that it completely rejects Fomenko’s wordsLike
-
Fomenko once said that carbon 14 test is not valid and wrong
I once heard that he resorted to carbon 14 testing to prove when the "Shroud of Turin" belongs to and that the shroud is not two thousand years old to say that Christ did not exist for two thousand years ago.
It is really strange that whenever his opinion is right, Carbon 14 is right, whenever his opinion is wrong, Carbon 14 is wrongHow do you accept carbon 14? mr Stephen Sorensen
Like
-
C14 is like all atoms. The protons eventually decompose. Rapid loss occurs when they are ‘radioactive’. That is, more likely to decompose.
Add energy from a Nova event and many more atoms decompose: the age calculated is based upon passage of time but falsified by bursts of energy instead.
Like
-
Sinewave 
Patrick Donnelly 
Andy Herlan 
mahdi 
mahdi 