Greenland Theory / History Lesson

[Novusod]

Should turn it around and say the Swiss own the CIA.

This is just one video but this guy's channel contains everything about Swiss codes and power structure. In occult circles they are called the OCTOGON.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOIqyk2JHZI

[Aianawa]

Ta, short and sweet, am always learning as did not know the squashed pyramid was a symbol.

[Aianawa]

I find a lot of this stuff interesting Aianawa but I get the feeling that a lot of these themes (invented Dark Ages, related cultures, more technology in the past, etc.) is better explained by Fomenko's work with the New Chronology than what this guy is saying. There are a few reasons I say this, which I will explain below.

The first reason is, what he is claiming would require a gargantuan amount of research that is hard to fathom, in order to make so many claims about such a wide range of history as hard and fast as he does. This guy looks like he's in his 30's-40's. By comparison, Fomenko has been researching his New Chronology for about as long as this guy has been alive (since the 1970's), with a team of colleagues at Moscow State University and help from elsewhere, and though they reach similar conclusions about a few things, they are much more cautious about saying "this is definitely what happened." Being very honest and transparent about the nature of the evidence, what we do know and don't know, is very important for academic integrity.

The second reason is, I can't find any clear methodology by which he has reached the conclusions that he has. His favorite source seems to be Wikipedia, but he doesn't cite independent sources for most of specific facts that he claims. He just links to Wikipedia articles for various words and names in his articles. This is not only bad research practice but it means anyone trying to actually verify his conclusions would have to do his research all over again just because he was too lazy to list his sources as he found them. Again, to compare with Fomenko, the bibliography for his History: Science or Fiction? series contains references to about 1,500 books, articles, papers, etc., and he tells you on exactly what page to find the information he is citing. That way you don't have to try to redo his research from scratch to see that he really did find all of this information from credible sources. This is what all good researchers are trained to do. Without that I basically have to take the guy on his word and I'm not prepared to do that.

The third reason is that Fomenko and his colleagues not only cite their sources but lay out a very compelling argument in detail, step by step, in their books. It's clear what can be safely concluded and what is still speculative, because there is transparency and honesty with what evidence is available and how it is interpreted. Fomenko and his colleagues also use an unusual methodology that they go over in detail, statistical analysis of primary source texts, that in itself is also very compelling. This is where they compare the lengths of reigns of rulers from various periods as well as the relative amount of literary material dedicated to specific periods and events, and find that certain periods are "mirror images" or duplications of other periods of history. The duplications are most likely based on fairly recent events, for example from around the 1300's to 1500's, and then erroneously dated (with changes of names and places -- easily accomplished by borrowing versions from other languages and cultures) to much earlier periods. This is a better documented and more satisfactory explanation as far as I'm concerned, and explains many of the same things. Researching what was actually covered up by all of this would probably explain just about everything else, given that there is enough surviving evidence.

I feel he cites wiki so as not to tangle up with others, also he likely cannot say where/who his data came from, likely his own family.

[Aianawa]

Been hearing his name a lot recently, more truth coming out ?.

[Dreamtimer]

Fomenko's name?

[Dreamtimer]

These shapes and their relations show up with the numbers in Mark Cockings work.

[Aianawa]

Sorta, the history lesson part, the three Romes as such, rome never died, lol just the senate, they, yes the they, have no nationality, no religion, no fixed abode, over time, yes they carry memory over time imo.

[Aianawa]

Yah have more time up sleeve again and time to catch up forum wise and update some old theories also

[Aianawa]

The now n last Rome > Greenland < to be bought by Trump or better said USA, said today , maybe more to that and Greenland like this thread says.

[Aianawa]

Sharing this thread from ATS, enjoying reading it atm > http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1225185/pg1

[Aianawa]

Connected, he got a couple things incorrect but great questions n vid >

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7F2g_YgP-7o

[Emil El Zapato]

Speaking of TV series, DT...Fortitude is a good one and I think it is set in Greenland...they went from powerful personal relationships and murder, to powerful supernatural relationships and murder...very interesting. 1st season starred Stanley Tucci and the 2nd starred Dennis Quaid. Sorry about the sideline Aianawa...

[Aianawa]

It's been no secret with the Eastern Orthodox and the Russians in particular that they consider Moscow the "third Rome," ever since Constantinople (the "second Rome") fell, according to the conventional narrative. What Fomenko also points out is that old place names like "Rome," or like cities named "Neopolis" (Napoli / Naples), actually meant something and aren't just abstract names in the modern sense like when we think of "George" or "Johnny." Names were originally more like Native American names, that actually meant something, like "Sitting Bull" or "Crazy Horse." Old Hebrew and Celtic names are good examples of this from across the Atlantic. "Naples" derives from the Greek for "new city" and there were several places named this, so when old texts mention some form of the word Naples, we have to figure out which one is being referenced.

The same is the case for "Rome," except when modern scholars see places like Constantinople or Moscow referred to as "Rome" in an old text, they just interpret it as being flowery language or a metaphor and fit it into their invented history, and so Constantinople is called the "second Rome" (and the whole story of the Byzantine Empire built around that) and Moscow the "third Rome" (and the Eastern Orthodox church has its own story about the fall of Constantinople built around that).


Then there's this:



"Grand Tartary" (depicted here in a map probably from the mid 1700's or so) got wiped out in the late 1700's and early 1800's, and then they stopped depicting it on maps, turned a lot of derogatory propaganda into "official" history, and did terrible things to the people who were living there. Of course a lot of that land is in Siberia and was probably very sparsely inhabited, though other areas apparently were not sparsely inhabited. I bought a short pdf about "Pougachev's" uprising there that shows it was a Romanov invasion across the Urals into this independent country. The local historians in towns on the other side of the Urals have museums that still make mention of the fact that the Romanov armies from Russia basically genocided the people living in these places and destroyed every trace of Muscovite Tartary that they could. They still have places in these towns called things like "gallows hill" where they gathered the locals and executed them in mass. Central Asia was invaded soon after.

Whatever the history of this country of Tartary was, it must have been something that someone really didn't want us to know about.

Liked Bsbrays open mind on occasion. Researching a Greenland data point and as we were talking of him today, felt to share his post.

[Aianawa]

Looking back it be so so strange a USA president to talk about buying Greenland, very out there as such, feel indeed there was more to that saga.