MrFlibble Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 I've just bumped into a Russian Wikia devoted to the New Chronology. Out of pure curiosity, I'd like to know, what do you guys think about this "theory"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tatar Khan Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 It is interesting theory and it is done in an interesting fashion however so far I beleive that he is greatly mistaken. He is a mathematician and not a historian. He also needs to present more proof on how could the carbon dating and oter dating methods are wrong. Finally, his theory basis too much on this global wide conspiracy theory, which is hard to beleive given the communications and the ties that existed between parts of the world back in the day. His statstical correlatin could be explained in a lot of cases by the fact that humans tend to go through certain stages of developement in each period of the history that tend to look alike. This is actually is one of the bases for the futurologist to make predictions about the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edric O Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 I really don't see how anyone could have "invented" the pyramids or any of the other monuments, cities and ruins that prove the existence of the ancient world. Furthermore, creating fake accounts of an ancient world that never existed would require a massive degree of co-ordination, involving thousands of people across the world - not only in Europe but also in India and China.Statistical similarities between different historical periods prove absolutely nothing. Correlation is not causation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aylene Posted June 20, 2006 Share Posted June 20, 2006 I think it's a great theory. Meaning, I love how they imply that all the historians from the Renaissance have been in a big conspiracy. My first instinct is to yell "Far-fetched!" and dismiss it out of hand, but they say the same thing about the accepted timeline, so I guess we're left to decide for ourselves which is more far-fetched. They have no proof to support their theory, but part of their theory is the elimination of all the proof we think we have for our timeline. Which also makes it useless. Without proof to back up either of the timelines, the world will stick with the old established one. I know I will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrFlibble Posted June 24, 2006 Author Share Posted June 24, 2006 In any way, the New Chronology remains the most daring instance of science fiction :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.