Mind blowing Fomnko's recalculations about Egyptian zodiacs, found in Egyptian temples (some found on sarcophagus in the same temples), lot of them are dated to the medieval period??!! Although calculated with complicated astronomical software (more in Chronology 3 (2007), New Egyptian Chronology (Russian, 2003), Zodiacs, Timeline of Egypt Cut in Stone (2005)), seems like following zodiacs are medieval fakes:
* The Round Zodiac of Dendera: the morning of 1185/03/20 AD.
* The Long Zodiac of Dendera: 1168/04/22-26 AD.
* The Greater Temple of Esna: 1394/03/31-04/03 AD.
* The Lesser Temple of Esna: 1404/05/06-08 AD.
* The Upper Athribean: 1230/05/15-16 AD.
* The Lower Athribean: 1268/02/09-10 AD.
* The Color Horoscope of Thebes: 1182/09/05-08 AD
or even worst, the Horoscope of Thebes, discovered by Henry Brugsch, contains 3 horoscopes:
* The horoscope of demotic subscripts: 1861/11/18 AD.
* The Horoscope without Staves: 1841/10/06-07 AD.
* The Horoscope with Boats: 1853/02/15 AD
If only part of these calculations are right, someone should re write history books.
Or how Fomenko debunked written History of Britain:
1) According to English history of 1-400 A.D. England at that
time was a Roman province. English history of that period speaks
more about events in Rome itself then in England. It was proved
in , that Roman history of that time reflects real events
from 9-13th cc. A.D.
2) That chronicles which are supposed now to speak about
English history of 400-830 A.D. appear to describe Rome and
Byzantine empire-0. Therefore these chronicles reflect some real
events of 9-15th cc. which took place in Byzantine empire.
3) That chronicles which are supposed now to speak about
English history of 830-1040 A.D. appear to describe Byzantine
empire-1. These chronicles also reflect real history of 9-15th
cc. in Byzantine empire.
4) That chronicles which are supposed now to speak about
English history of 1040-1327 A.D. appear to describe Byzantine
empire-3 and therefore they reflect real history of 9-15th cc.in
Byzantine empire. The name "Anglia" (England) came from the name
of well-known Byzantine dynasty of Angels (1185-1204 A.D.)
5) Thus, in this hypothesis we suggest that those ancient and
medieval English chronicles which are now available and which are
thought by historians to speak about some events from the epoch
before the beginning of 14th century, are in fact devoted to
certain periods of Byzantine history of 9-15th cc. Roughly
speaking, ancient English chronicles are in fact Byzantine
chronicles which were taken from Byzantine to England and then
modified in a such way that they seem to speak about events in
6) The time when written history of the island which is today
called as England really begins is most probably the epoch of
9-10th centuries. Now we have only very few information about
that early period of English history on the island. So the
description of English history of 9-13 cc. is in fact rather
fragmentary. But this information about real island events was
then "covered" by chronicles brought from Byzantine empire. The
resulting sum of two fibers: "island fiber" and "Byzantine fiber"
we can see now as the English history of 9-13th cc.
7) Starting from 14th century English history speaks about
real events in England only. Roughly speaking, traditional
version of English history becomes correct from 14th c.
8) One might ask: "If you are right, how to explain the fact
that in ancient English chronicles there are chronological
details about, for example, how many years there were between the
Flood and a certain event of English history? These chronological
details often agree with Scaliger's (modern) chronological
concept." The answer is follows.
At first, note that chronological and astronomical data from
ancient chronicles in many cases strongly contradict with modern
historical version. See ,.
In the second, even if we see that a direct chronological
statement from ancient text agrees well with modern tradition, it
says really nothing, because all ancient chronicles which we have
today, were finally edited only in 15-17th cc. And it was exactly
the time when modern chronological concept was worked out (in
general). Such direct chronological statements are simply the
traces of chronological computations of 15-17th cc. At that time
historians "calculated" the dates of ancient events and then
placed (for reader's convenience) the results of their
(medieval!) calculations inside ancient historical texts. The
fact that chronological statements in different ancient texts
often agree means that today we have mostly the results of work
of only one medieval chronological school. It was the
chronological school which work was supervised in 15-17th cc. by
More of historical dillemas:
The Peloponnesian war broke out in 431 BC (using traditional dates) and Thucydides wrote that he began writing memoares of Peloponnesian war "at the moment that it broke out." (according to his own writings: All was at last ready, and they were on the point of sailing away, when an eclipse of the moon, which was then at the full, took place")
Thucydides actually wrote of three eclipses, two solar and one lunar, that occured during the war. From his writings we learn the first and second eclipse were solar, the third was the lunar one. The time between the first and second was 7 years. The time between the second and the third is 11 years. The first eclipse is a full eclipse, in the summer, after midday, local time. He mentions the stars can be seen, which cannot happen in a partial eclipse. The second eclipse is at the beginning of summer, the third eclipse is around the end of summer.
Mathematicians and astronomers can determine from this information (and given the location) exactly when this would have occurred. Look at your calendar and newspapers, the calendar makers, astronomers, mathematicians routinely tell you when and where eclipses will occur and where and when they did occur in the past. There are computer programs that can do this for you if you do not have the math skills. Some astrologers can do this.
In the 16th Century A.D., the chronologer Dionysius Petavius determined a date that fit the first eclipse - 3 August 431 B.C. The start of the Peloponnesus war was then dated 431 B.C. The famous astronomer/mathematician Johannes Kepler confirmed the date.
Petavius then figured out the date for the second eclipse, 21 March 424 B.C. Kepler also confirmed that date.
Then Petavius choose 27 August 431 B.C. for the third eclipse.
When more modern astronomers tried to verify these dates, heated debates broke out in the 18th to the 20th centuries. The problem is the first date would not have been a total eclipse - and Thucydides in the original Greek clearly stated you could see the stars - it was a total eclipse. It would not have been total anywhere on earth. Prominent historical 'experts' who tried to solve this 'Thucydides triad problem' over the years included Petavius, Zech, Heis, Struyck, Kepler, Riccioli, Hofman, Ginzel, Johnson, Lynn, Stockwell, and Seyffarth. They did not want to get too far away from the 'well-known' date of the birth of Christ and were not able to solve the problem.
Finally a Russian mathematician named N. A. Morozov determined that an exact solution does exist. The eclipse actually occurred 2 August 1133 A.D.
Then A. T. Fomenko pointed out the real date: 22 August 1039 A.D. This means that Thucydides and Herodotus were 1,000 years AFTER the traditional date of Christ's birth. This means the date of Christ's birth is at least about ONE THOUSAND YEARS too old, too far back. When you pursue the ramifications of this mathematically proven fact, you will begin to see how massive are the lies that have been perpetrated upon you, upon all Western humanity.
more on: http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/conspiracy/history/illusionsofhistory.shtml
I would like to know what really happened and when, the only problem is, how to get the whole picture with so many deviations. At least should feel gratitude to ward Fomenko's work because he found out so many discrepancies in recorded history and he did not hesitate to publish whatever he found out despite negative critics stated by conservative historians.