WE HAVE ALL FORGOTTEN [THE LIES OF HISTORIANS ALL THE TRUTH ABOUT US]

May 7, 2019

A millennium that never happened.
The largest falsification of history. What happened in the interval between the stolen history is anyone’s guess. And whether we remember these events is also a big question.https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZRzgTbtLXio?modestbranding=0&controls=1&rel=0&showinfo=1&enablejsapi=1&origin=https%3A%2F%2Ft2l3fwxbrkmh5fnqba2bs3iewi–zen-yandex-ru.translate.goog

The Millennium That Wasn’t

Václavské ná .., Prague

the creation of traditional chronology, there were about two hundred different options for dates, which fit the story to the biblical concept. Moreover, the range of these options was impressive – more than 3500 years, that is, the period from the “Creation of the world” to the “Nativity of Christ” fit into the interval between 3483 and 6984 BC.

And so, in order to bring all these disparate options to a single plausible form, the Jesuit monk Petavius ​​and the chronologist Scaliger were involved in the case.

The chronology of ancient and medieval history, which at the moment is considered the only true one and is studied in schools and universities, was created in the 16th-17th centuries of our era. Its authors are the Western European chronologist JOSEPH SCALIGER and the Catholic Jesuit monk DIONYSUS PETAVIUS.

They brought the chronological spread of dates, so to speak, to a common denominator. However, their dating methods, like those of their predecessors, were imperfect, erroneous and subjective. And, sometimes, these “mistakes” were of a deliberate (ordered) nature. As a result, the story was extended by a thousand years, and this extra millennium was filled with phantom events and characters that had never really existed before.

Joseph Scaliger and Dionysius Petavius

Subsequently, some delusions gave rise to others and, growing like a snowball, dragged the chronology of events in world history into the abyss of virtual piles that had nothing to do with reality.

This pseudoscientific chronological doctrine of SCALIGER-PETAVIUS, at one time, was seriously criticized by outstanding figures of world science. Among them are the famous English mathematician and physicist Isaac Newton, the prominent French scientist Jean Harduin, the English historian Edwin Johnson, German educators – philologist Robert Baldauf and lawyer Wilhelm Kammaer, Russian scientists – Peter Nikiforovich Krekshin (personal secretary of Peter I) and Nikolai Aleksandrovich Morozov, American historian (of Belarusian origin) Emmanuel Velikovsky

Isaac Newton, Petr Nikiforovich Krekshin, Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov, Emmanuel Velikovsky

Further, already in our days, the baton of rejection of the Scaligerian chronology was picked up by their followers. Among them – Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Physics and Mathematics, Professor, Laureate of the State Prize of Russia, Anatoly Timofeevich Fomenko (author of NEW CHRONOLOGY in co-authorship with Candidate of Mathematical Sciences Gleb Vladimirovich Nosovsky), Doctor of Physics and Mathematics, Vladimir Vyacheslavovich Kalashnikov, Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Lenin Prize Laureate, Professor Mikhail Mikhailovich Postnikov and a scientist from Germany – historian and writer Yevgeny Yakovlevich Gabovich.

Anatoly Timofeevich Fomenko, Gleb Vladimirovich Nosovsky, Vladimir Vyacheslavovich Kalashnikov, Evgeny Yakovlevich Gabovich

But, in spite of the selfless research work of these scientists, the world historical community still uses in its scientific arsenal, as a standard, the foundations of the vicious “Scaligerian” chronology. Until now, there is no complete, fundamental and objective research on the “Chronology of the Ancient World” that meets the modern requirements of historical science.

How dates were recorded in the Middle Ages

In the XV, XVI and XII centuries, after the introduction into circulation of the “JULIAN”, and then, and the “GRIGORIAN” calendar, leading the chronology “FROM THE BIRTH OF CHRIST”, the dates were written in Roman and Arabic numerals, but not as they are today, but TOGETHER WITH LETTERS.

But they have already managed to “forget” about it.

In medieval Italy, Byzantium and Greece, dates were written in Roman numerals.

“ROMAN NUMBERS, the numbers of the ancient Romans, – said in the encyclopedia, – The system of Roman numerals is based on the use of special signs for decimal places:

I = 1 (unus)
X = 10 (decem)

C = 100 (centum)

M = 1000 (mille)

and their halves:

V = 5 (quinque)

L = 50 (quinquaginta)

D = 500 (quingenti)

Natural numbers are written by repeating these numbers. Moreover, if a large number comes before a smaller one, then they add up

XII = 12

IX = 9

(the principle of addition), if the smaller one is before the larger one, then the smaller one is subtracted from the larger one (the principle of subtraction). The last rule applies only to avoid repeating the same number four times. “

It is believed, further, that Roman numerals appeared a very long time ago, long before the new era, at the time of the “ancient Romans”. At the same time, numbers up to fifty were recorded using three icons:

I = 1

V = 5

X = 10

Why exactly such and only such signs were used for small numbers? Probably, at first, people operated on small values. Only later did large numbers come into use. For example, more than fifty, hundreds, and so on. Then new, additional signs were required, like:

L = 50

C = 100

D = 500

M = 1000

Therefore, it is logical to assume that the signs for small numbers were the original, the earliest, the MOST ANCIENT. In addition, originally, the so-called system of “addition and subtraction” of signs was not used in writing Roman numerals. She appeared much later. For example, the numbers 4 and 9, in those days, were written like this:

4 = IIII

9 = VIIII

This can be clearly seen in the medieval Western European engraving by the German artist Georg Penz “TIME TRIUMPH” and on the old book miniature with a sundial.

Dates in the Middle Ages according to the “JULIAN” and “GRIGORIAN” calendars, leading chronology from the “CHRIST’S BIRTHDAY”, were written in letters and numbers.

X = “Christ”

The Greek letter “Xi”, before the date written in Roman numerals, once meant the name “Christ”, but then it was changed into the number 10, indicating ten centuries, that is, a millennium.

Thus, there was a chronological shift in medieval dates by 1000 years, when later historians compared two different ways of recording.

How were the dates recorded in those days?

The first of these methods was, of course, the complete date recording.

She looked like this:

1st century A.D.

2nd century A.D.

III century A.D.

“1st century from the birth of Christ”, “2nd century from the birth of Christ”, “3rd century from the birth of Christ”, etc.

The second way was the abbreviated notation.

Dates were written like this:

X. I = from Christ 1st century

X. II = from Christ II century

X. III = from Christ III century

etc. where “X” is not the Roman numeral 10, but the first letter in the Greek word “Christ”.

Mosaic image of Jesus Christ on the dome of “Hagia Sophia” in Istanbul

The letter “X” is one of the most common medieval monograms still found in ancient icons, mosaics, frescoes and book miniatures. She symbolizes the name of Christ. Therefore, they put it in front of the date written in Roman numerals in the calendar leading the chronology “from the CHRIST’S BIRTHDAY” and separated it with a dot from the numbers.

It is from these abbreviations that the designations of centuries adopted today arose. True, the letter “X” is already read by us not as a letter, but as the Roman numeral 10.

When the date was written in Arabic numerals, the letter “I” was put in front of them – the first letter of the name “Jesus” written in Greek and, too, was separated by a dot. But later, this letter was declared a “unit”, supposedly meaning “one thousand.”

I.400 = from Jesus 400th year

Therefore, the record of the date “I” point 400, for example, originally meant: “From Jesus the 400th year.”

This way of writing is consistent with the previous one, since I. 400 is the 400th

From Jesus 400th year = 400th year from the beginning of X. I in n. e. = X. I century.

year “from the Nativity of Jesus” or “400th year from the beginning of the X. I century AD. e. “

Here is a medieval English engraving, allegedly dated 1463. But if you look closely, you can see that the first digit, one (ie, one thousand) is not a digit at all, but the Latin letter “I”. Exactly the same as the letter on the left in the word “DNI”. By the way, the Latin inscription “Anno domini” means “from the Nativity of Christ” – abbreviated as ADI (from Jesus) and ADX (from Christ). Consequently, the date written on this engraving is not 1463, as modern chronologists and art historians claim, but 463 “from Jesus”, i.e. “From the Nativity of Christ.”

This old engraving by the German artist Johans Baldung Green bears his author’s stamp with a date (allegedly 1515). But with a strong increase in this stigma, you can clearly see at the beginning of the date the Latin letter “I” (from Jesus) exactly the same as in the author’s monogram “IGB” (Johannes Baldung Green), and the number “1” is written differently here.

This means that the date on this engraving is not 1515, as modern historians claim, but 515 from the “Nativity of Christ”.

On the title page of the book by Adam Olearius “Description of the journey in

Muscovy ”depicts an engraving with a date (allegedly 1566). At first glance, the Latin letter “I” at the beginning of the date can be taken as a unit, but if we look closely, we will clearly see that this is not a number at all, but a capital letter “I”, exactly the same as in this fragment from

old handwritten German text.

Therefore, the real date of the engraving on the title page of the medieval book of Adam Olearius is not 1566, but 566 from the “Nativity of Christ”.

The same uppercase Latin letter “I” appears at the beginning of the date on an old engraving depicting the Russian Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov. This engraving was made by a medieval Western European artist, as we already understand, not in 1664, but in 664 – from the “Nativity of Christ”.

And in this portrait of the legendary Marina Mnishek (wife of False Dmitry I), the capital letter “I” at high magnification does not at all look like number one, no matter how we try to imagine it. And although historians attribute this portrait to 1609, common sense tells us that the true date of the engraving is 609 from the “Nativity of Christ”.

On the engraving of the medieval coat of arms of the German city of Nuremberg, it is written in large: “Anno (ie, date) from Jesus 658”. The capital letter “I” in front of the date digits is depicted so clearly that it cannot be confused with any “unit”.

This engraving was made, no doubt, in 658 AD. By the way, the double-headed eagle, located in the center of the coat of arms, tells us that Nuremberg in those distant times was part of the Russian Empire.

Exactly the same, capital letters “I” can be seen in the dates on the old frescoes in the medieval “Chilienne Castle”, located in the picturesque Swiss Riviera on the shores of Lake Geneva near the city of Montreux.

( https://zen.yandex.ru/media/bylina/1000-let-ukradenoi-istorii-my-vse-zabyli-loj-istorikov-vsia-pravda-o-nas-5ccfb4f0ac1ad900b3c6a16d )