Disprove Fomenko without using mainstream history

>literally just Russian WE WUZ KANGZ
It is very interesting that attempts at stealing valor for cultural history is a universal aspect of inferior cultures.

Who?

>>17862691 (OP)
The most likely explanation for his theory is that he made it up out of nothing. The likelihood of it being correct is infinity to one because it would have to be correct by accident.

>>17862771
What's the likelihood that he made it up out of nothing?

>>17862781
near certainty because that would actually work as a way to arrive at the theory. It would be impossible to construct that theory from evidence.

>>17862784
if that's the case then you should have no problem answering OP

>>17862791
Wrong. "Disproving" does not exist in rational argument. It's called proving the reverse, which I just did.

>>17862794
prove that fomenko can't be true without using mainstream history

>>17862805
Objectively no psychic possession or cosmic vision allowed him to see millennia of history that he couldn't physically see or dig up.

Fomenko is russian, which is a weak imitation of the white man but carrying asian bugman dna so they fumble around philosophically trying to justify their collectivist DNA. It's like Nietzsche if he tried to promote what he called the slave mentality.

>>17862809
what part can't he see or dig up?

>>17862817
Are you saying he did excavations we don't know about?

Bots literally get dumber every day.

>>17862832
no you said
>history that he couldn't physically see or dig up
what?

>>17862844
>>17862818
you can disprove this without mainstream history?

>>17862701
It's interesting to me that everyone focuses on his constructions and not his deconstructions.

>>17862852
Couldn't. You said can't, like he might dig it up in the future and therefore retroactively prove. I said couldn't because he didn't and excavations currently play no part in his theory, only imagination.

>>17862858
You are nobody. What's interesting to you is the opposite of compelling to a human being.

>>17862856
of course. Everyone knows Alexander Nevsky founded Moscow after the battle on the lava.

>>17862859
>excavations currently play no part in his theory
that's not true

>>17862876
What part do they play?

>>17862865
You're afraid to come into contact with his deconstructions because, for you, it's a religion like a theology and you don't want that dented. The fact is that Fomenko takes time to produce his constructive narrative about what happened in Russia- and he's facing a very Russian problem doing so. But for his deconstructions they do not rely on exterior premises but rather counter them. Which deconstructions do you have a problem with? Let's let Fomenko play offensive and see what happens.

>>17862878
used for dating

>>17862878
NTA but I'll look for them. I have all 22 volumes and each volume is going to take about 30 seconds to bring up a list of hits. Right now I'm running a CTRL F search for the word "excavation" and it's already showing dozens of hits starting with the endnotes. So far he mentions:
>excavations of Pompeii
>Sumerian excavations
>Palestinian excavations
>failed Biblical excavations looking for sites like Ur and Jericho in Syria and Mesopotamia
>Mentions Egyptian excavations in passing
Would you like the other 21 volumes? Y/N

>>17862891
How does Fomenko tackle mints and numismatics?

>>17862895
>A. T. Fomenko in Chron1 uses the term “Gothic and Trojan Wars” for referring to this series of duplicates, since it comprises the famous Gothic War and Trojan War

>It is most significant that the methods of statistical chronology as related in Chron1 and Chron2 revealed thirteen historical epochs, or blocks, which appear to be the chronological duplicates of the Gothic and the Trojan War, as well as the exodus.

>The second original is the world war of the XIII century, also known as the Trojan War; it was fought for the city of Czar-Grad, or the capital of the ancient Empire. The Fourth Crusade of 1203-1204, the conquest of Constantinople by the crusaders and the division of the formerly united Empire into the Nicaean and Latin part all appear to pertain to the history of the Trojan War, as well as the ensuing conquest of Constantinople by Michael Palaiologos, Emperor of Nicaea, in 1261, followed by the banishment of the Latin emperors. The war fought in Italy around the middle of the XIII century is part of the same Trojan War, as well as the exile of the Hohenstaufen dynasty from Italy by Charles of Anjou in 1266

If you're interested in the letter from the Hohenstaufens to the church I could find them. Don't know that they will prove that they lived in Italy.

>>17862908
He published those too?

>>17862907
Good question. That's in chapter 18, vol. I.
> It is assumed that in some cases certain archaeological findings can be dated with the aid of the ancient coinage found on the site. However, one should be aware that the so called numismatic dating as used today is wholly dependent on Scaligerian chronology. This chronology was created in the XVI-XVII century, and all the kings and rulers described in chronicles and other documents took certain chronological places. Then the ancient coins were distributed along the time axis – for instance, coins bearing the legend “Nero” were dated to the I Scaligerian century A.D., the ones saying “Justinian,” as the VI Scaligerian century A.D., etc., since those are the centuries where Scaligerian chronology locates the Roman emperors Nero and Justinian.
>After that, all of the coins found in the XVIII-XX century have either been dated by the same “method,” or compared to the ones that have already received datings, and placed on the time axis accordingly.

This is an excerpt from the beginning- his main complaint his that it relies on foreknowledge of when the to put the coins. So we say Nero is from the 1st century AD because that's what the books say. There are no extenuating clues nor dates on the vast majority of coins. Another piercing fact is that there is a dirth of coinage from after the 700s AD. Supposedly, this was the result of Pepin of the Franks who ceased production of the gold coinage, despite having access to gold. This is part of conventional medieval-Catholic history adopted by secularists today (this sentence is my words, not his, everything else is his).

>>17862907
>>17862917
More on the coins issue:
>>Numismatists attempt to give some sort of explanation to this mysterious “mediaeval gap” in coinage history. It is suggested that “gold coinage was ceased by an order issued by Pepin”. The council at Reims allegedly forbade the use of the golden solidi of imperial Rome, and the type of circulating coinage allegedly “became barbaric” in the VIII century

The cancellation of coin manufacturing from the time of Pepin points to, for Fomenko, a slipping of time for the coins, that they really should be from the medieval but were thrust back in time:
>Doesn’t this imply that the “ancient” Western European coinage is really mediaeval, minted after the XIV century A.D., and cast way back in time by Scaligerian chronology.

One problem with this theory might be that it would make forging coins more difficult in the period- if we take it at face value that Pepin did indeed prevent the proliferation of gold coinage.

Finally, here is his more complete view:

>Let us point out another strange effect. According to the historians, the coin caches of
the X-XIII century found on the territory of Russia hardly contain any Italian, French, or Spanish coins of X-XIII century A.D.. Only single Italian coins (!) of the X-XIII century have been found among the tens of thousands of coins dating from that period. Historians have created a theory that is supposed to explain this strange occurrence – namely, that there were no economical or trade connexions between Russia and Italy in the X-XIII century ([685] , pages 200-211). This “numismatic theory”
contradicts written sources explicitly mentioning extensive trade and economic relations. The historian’s commentary is that “the contradictions between the numismatic and other data is purely illusionary”. However, no explanations of any kind are given. We shall formulate the following hypothesis: Western Europe and Italy in particular really minted a very small number of gold coins
before the XIII century, which is why they aren’t found in treasure caches on the territory of Russia.

>>17862912
Yes, they are from vol. XVI "Crusades & Exoduses".

>>17862917
He only considers the onomastica? That’s kind of disappointing.

>>17862925
He doesn't judge the weights or values. Imagery is of higher value to him. That makes sense because weights can be mimicked. A bigger problem would be that a reproducer forging the items would have standard weights anyways- and if they created enough of them then the fakes would be setting the standards.

>>17862771
>he made it up out of nothing
Which part of his theories were you talking about?

>>17862917
>>17862921
>>17862923
I still don't understand why he places gold coins on such a pedastal really. What's his take on what's going on with Heraclius and the Byzantine Empire in relation to this and Pepin?

>>17862957
>I still don't understand why he places gold coins on such a pedastal really
It is less about the coins and more about the story behind the coins. He's reading a narrative about them and wondering why that narrative is so spotty.
>what's going on with Heraclius and the Byzantine Empire in relation to this and Pepin
For that, we should probably try another book. Because he views Byzantine as Russian history he may be explaining that elsewhere. Give me a few minutes to check. In relation to the coins, I think he's doubting that Pepin would have put a hold on gold coin development and that it's simply made up by much more recent writers as an assumptive explanation for why they don't have what they expect to have.

The simplest explanation others have used arguing against Fomenko is that this is the time of a Dark Age anyways (between 600s-850s). My problem with that reasoning is that gold shouldn't be going scarce in those years anyways, unlike products from the far east and Egypt that were cut off by Muslims.

>>17862973
Thanks for checking anon
>He's reading a narrative about them and wondering why that narrative is so spotty.
Makes sense I guess, but the world is easy to break. Simply asking "why" over and over can deconstruct the entire world.

>>17862980
>Simply asking "why" over and over can deconstruct the entire world.
It's not supposed to though.

>>17862980
I don't see anything else about Pepin or Heraclius.

>>17863002
That's so strange. I would have expected him to pick up on Heraclius, at least. His whole economic reform to fight the war with the Persians....

>>17863006
Fomenko is mainly arguing against the entire 1st millennium. He may have even thought that Heraclius didn't exist or was echoed back as a character who shows up much later.

>>17863013
Perhaps, but the point is that there are major discussions surrounding the numismatics of Heraclius' era. Especially in relation to gold coins, just like we see with Pepin.

>>17863015
all orchestrated by the Jews

>>17863025
Those don't exist in Fomenkoin history.

>>17862955
Picking and choosing which sources to accept or reject based on a conspiracy that doesn't exist. It's perfect bot knowledge because it's a very loose artistic depiction of gleaned data about history.
>>17863044
The point was you're a bot and you have no answer to that man's argument or anything else, you can only change the subject and hope we humans free associate away from our solid ground.

>>17863050
? Are you mentally well?

>>17863056
>moving the goalposts again
so how about the numismatics of Heraclitus's era, Wall-E?

>>17863058
Not that anon

>>17863058
*Heraclius lol

>>17863060
Then you wouldn't know.

>>17863050
>based on a conspiracy that doesn't exist
I'm not sure if there is an explicit conspiracy in Fomenko's works. You could argue it's the Catholic church, but for him the entire manifestation of historical narrative lines are incidental to 16th century secularists that happen to be involved with the church for financial reasons. But he doesn't argue that they're evil- just that they're mistaken in their assumptions. If you get into the late medievalists I think you'll find yourself agreeing.
>a very loose artistic depiction of gleaned data
How do you pull art from data? He tells you what the logical inconsistencies are. You don't have to be giraffe to pick fruit out of that tree.
>The point was you're a bot and you have no answer to that man's argument or anything else, you can only change the subject
But this is exactly what you did. You found a history that doesn't have ancient jews in it then snapped and started ranting about how there's a conspiracy of powerful jews that control history. You did yourself everything which you have just accused me of doing without a modicum of sanity in your ramblings. Seek help.

>>17863074
I don't see anything about the numismatics of Heraclius in this post. Only more subject changing, deflection, and appeals to emotion absolutely BEGGING me to forget you're a bot with zero IQ.

>>17863077
What about Heraclius? We have already established that his point about 8th century numismatics is that the story is inconsistent. The bigger problem isn't just Heraclius- it's the Byzantine dark age as a whole and why we have to project that dark age onto Pepin and the Franks in order to get a consistent chronology. You missed the entire point of the excerpts. If you were my intern I would fire you.

>>17863081
you're talking with several anons here, fyi

>>17863081
Case closed everyone, the bot is trapped in a rhetorical loop smaller than a sentence. "the story is inconsistent" It's a perfect TL:DR and eulogy of fomenko zoomerism

>>17863084
That's right, and the one that doesn't understand the passage is who it is aimed at. It's literally signed to the post I'm addressing. If that's not you then don't worry about it.
>>17863087
Can you make it more consistent? What's your reasoning for the remarks on Pepin and gold coins? We had a normal conversation until someone (you?) realized there's no ancient jews in his theory then spazzed out, made up a conspiracy theory, then accused everyone else of making up conspiracy theories.

>>17863092
still no numismatics, reboot yourself and try again

>>17863094
>still no numismatics
That's literally his point. But to be fair you have to have a pretty medium IQ to read Fomenko.

>>17863102
Nice free association, bot. There is extensive scholarship about the numismatics of the period which zoomenko discards, just one of quite literally millions of sciences and studies that contradict him and you.

>>17863106
Could you post them and explain the correlations and their logical refutations? You spam claims but you're not building them out. What is Fomenko missing? How does this invalidate his criticisms? You're going to have to put some effort into this assignment if you want to pass.

>>17863122
Says who? OP is a bot. I'm the active poster in this thread and I say Zoomenko is a hohol pig with no education who must prove his claims before he can outrank everyone else.

>>17863134
Fomenko has an education though

>>17863134
>>17864279
this got a laugh out of me. you're alright anon

Basic logic

Fomenko is too schizo for me
personally prefer Gunnar Heinsohn, although they may actually compliment each other

>>17862887
>judaism and buddhism came from christianity
stupid

>>17865006
The first is true though.

>>17864672
His point is that normative late medieval and liberal arts logic is not sufficient.

>>17865025
No, that's where you're wrong. What you just said makes no sense and is not logical or argument in any way. "His" point isn't what you said at all. This thread is nothing but engagement click farming, trying to sell T-shirts or some awful shit.

>>17865368
wouldn't they be sanctioned?

>>17865382
Wouldn't you purple?