Comments by "Alain Portant" (@alainportant6412) on "California Cults and The Laurel Canyon Conspiracy" video.
-
2
-
12:53 Yeah, its called "New chronology" , initially developed by Anatoly Fomenko. But frankly his conclusions are sort of wacky and Russian centred.
What seems extremely plausible though, is that most ( if not all ) of the antiquity has been antedated to make it seem way older than it really is, for political purposes. The official chronology doesn't make much sense, frankly.
The key to this chronological problem seems to revolve around the pseudo-antique Roman empire ( which would have been faked by the more recent Roman Republic ) actually taking place during the so called middle ages and onto the renaissance ( which would make it a naissance(birth) rather than a renaissance(rebirth) of pseudo-antique knowledge .
For instance the colosseum wouldn't be 2000 years old, but more likely around 500 ( it doesn't appear on older maps ).
Think of it, there are no original works of Pluto, Socrates, Caesar or anything like that. Only transcriptions made during the so called renaissance 1300-1600 ( which would have been the date of the actual Roman empire)
To make matter worse, the oldest italian family ( The Orsinis ) can only be dated back to the year 1000, as for every European royal families. Nothing before the year 700.
So where did those antique ancestors go ? Well, they likely never existed.
1
-
Yeah, its called "New chronology" , initially developed by Anatoly Fomenko. But frankly his conclusions are sort of wacky and Russian centred.
What seems extremely plausible though, is that most ( if not all ) of the antiquity has been antedated to make it seem way older than it really is, for political purposes. The official chronology doesn't make much sense, frankly.
The key to this chronological problem seems to revolve around the pseudo-antique Roman empire ( which would have been faked by the more recent Roman Republic ) actually taking place during the so called middle ages and onto the renaissance ( which would make it a naissance(birth) rather than a renaissance(rebirth) of pseudo-antique knowledge .
For instance the colosseum wouldn't be 2000 years old, but more likely around 500 ( it doesn't appear on older maps ).
Think of it, there are no original works of Pluto, Socrates, Caesar or anything like that. Only transcriptions made during the so called renaissance 1300-1600 ( which would have been the date of the actual Roman empire)
To make matter worse, the oldest italian family ( The Orsinis ) can only be dated back to the year 1000, as for every European royal families. Nothing before the year 700.
So where did those antique ancestors go ? Well, they likely never existed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1