The History of ‘Histories’

Note that this piece was followed by an Addendum (26-Oct-2017) and both articles were built upon in Full Member Video Update #07 (3-Nov-2017).


The History of ‘Histories’

PROLOGUE

Before reading this article, you might benefit from revisiting earlier pieces regarding what I call the History Hoax and also Primary Source Research Methodology.

Article #19 | The History Hoax – A Primer (5-Jul-2017)

tl;dr Humans love stories, and the stories of ‘history’ are just stories. Even true stories are still just stories, and the retelling of stories requires no intelligence or genuine thought, but merely repetition. We have grown up in an age in which so many stories have been repeated so many times that few of us will ever stop to wonder, let alone investigate, where these stories actually come from.

Article #20 | The History of History (6-Jul-2017)

tl;dr The academic discipline known as ‘history’ is less than 200 years old. History ‘education’ dates to the 1800s, and yet ‘experts’ within that field can supposedly tell us what was happening hundreds and even thousands of years ago. And people believe them. That is, the ‘experts’ claim to have knowledge of events which are literally prehistorical.

Screenshot 24-Oct-2017 – Free Dictionary.

 

Article #29 | Primary Source Research Methodology (17-Oct-2017)

tl;dr Primary sources are those which come directly from the time/event/person in question. Secondary sources are those which do not come directly from the time/event/person in question. It seems logical to sooner rely on a man’s own words/writings to piece together his life than to rely on stories told decades or centuries (or millennia) later. This is why I personally prioritise primary sources well above secondary sources in my research.

If you have not already done so, you are also strongly encouraged to familiarise yourself with the Exordium page and in particular the Welcome Video. If you haven’t revisited that page/video for some time it may be worth refreshing your memory.

NOTE: The images used in this article are likely to be scaled down if you read them on a handheld device. You can click on any image to see it in full size.


Herodotus is considered the ‘father of history’. My question is: did he even exist?

This article will use the example of ‘Herodotus’ and his classic work Histories to demonstrate just how little of what we are shown as ‘history’ is based on primary sources.

Contents

1 – Introduction to Herodotus (popular sources)
2 – Official stories and modern mythos
3 – Tertiary sources vs primary sources
4 – Wikipedia’s page on Herodotus
5 – Wikipedia’s page on Herodotus – references
6 – Godley’s translation of Herodotus
7 – Stein’s translation of Herodotus
8 – The process of primary source research
9 – Wikipedia’s page on Herodotus’ work Histories
10 – Wikipedia’s page on the Oxyrhynchus Papyri
11 – Oxford confirms the story of Oxyrhynchus
12 – The bust of Herodotus
13 – Key concepts and ideas revised
14 – There is no case – there never was!
15 – I know it sounds crazy, but…
16 – I could be wrong

Sources
Credits


1 – Introduction to Herodotus (popular sources)

Herodotus is a key figure in the field of ‘history’. If one were to google his name, the top four search results would likely be pages from Wikipedia, Ancients.eu, History.com, and Brittanica.com.

Screenshot 24-Oct-2017

Let’s take a look at what each has to say about ‘Herodotus’.

Wikipedia

Herodotus was a Greek historian who was born in Halicarnassus in the Persian Empire (modern-day Bodrum, Turkey) and lived in the fifth century BC (c. 484–c. 425 BC), a contemporary of Thucydides, Socrates, and Euripides. He is often referred to as “The Father of History”, a title first conferred by Cicero; he was the first historian known to have broken from Homeric tradition to treat historical subjects as a method of investigation—specifically, by collecting his materials systematically and critically, and then arranging them into a historiographic narrative.
link

Ancients.eu

Herodotus (c. 484 – 425/413 BCE) was a writer who invented the field of study known today as `history’. He was called `The Father of History’ by the Roman writer and orator Cicero for his famous work The Histories but has also been called “The Father of Lies” by critics who claim these `histories’ are little more than tall tales. Criticism of Herodotus’ work seems to have originated among Athenians who took exception to his account of the Battle of Marathon (490 BCE) and, specifically, which families were due the most honor for the victory over the Persians. More serious criticism of his work has to do with the credibility of the accounts of his travels.
link

History.com

Sometime around the year 425 B.C., the writer and geographer Herodotus published his magnum opus: a long account of the Greco-Persian Wars that he called The Histories. (The Greek word “historie” means “inquiry.”) Before Herodotus, no writer had ever made such a systematic, thorough study of the past or tried to explain the cause-and-effect of its events. After Herodotus, historical analysis became an indispensable part of intellectual and political life. Scholars have been following in Herodotus’ footsteps for 2,500 years.
link

Brittanica.com

Herodotus (born 484 BCE?, Halicarnassus, Asia Minor [now Bodrum, Turkey]?—died c. 430–420), Greek author of the first great narrative history produced in the ancient world, the History of the Greco-Persian Wars.
link

Putting this all together, then, the following would seem to be a fair summary of the official story overview of Herodotus.

-Alive roughly 400 BC
-the ‘father of history’
-the man who ‘invented the field of study known as history’
-the man whose ‘footsteps have been followed by scholars ever since’
-his work Histories is the ‘first great narrative’ of history

KEY: Herodotus is a central figure of ‘ancient history’ and is considered by popular sources to the ‘father of history’.


2 – Official stories and modern mythos

It is beyond the scope of this article to explore the concept of the ‘official story’ (that is, the mythos intended for and/or accepted by the masses), or how the modern layman will typically source his information from the top few results of a google search. It should suffice for now to point out that the four paragraphs provided above can be taken as an overview of the official story of Herodotus as it stands today. That is, as far as a regular person would be concerned, the information cited above would be considered to be a genuine, historical account of the life of Herodotus.


3 – Tertiary sources vs primary sources

Each of the four sources in question are what I would describe as tertiary sources. That is, compilations of secondary sources (and, in theory, primary sources) for the purpose of a broad overview of the topic at hand. Ideally, a tertiary source will provide a ‘bibliography’ and/or ‘references’ for inquiring minds to dig deeper into the matter for themselves.

In the case of historical figures it is obviously going to be worth going directly to the primary source i.e. the words of the historical figure himself. Since we cannot read ancient Greek, we will have to settle for translations. So long as these translations are themselves based upon the original, primary sources, and can cite the whereabouts of the original (so that those who wish to do so can check for themselves), then these translations are as good as primary sources for the purpose of our investigation.

KEY: Since we cannot read ancient Greek, we will accept as a ‘primary source’ a true translation of Herodotus’ words — so long as the original can itself can be identified for verification.

This ought to be straightforward. If I were to publish a translation of somebody else’s work, I would obviously explain at the outset which copy of their work I had used as my source. If I were translating a book, I would explain at the very beginning of my translation, as part of the preface (if not earlier), which original book I was translating from, where I had gotten the book, and where others can go to find the original for themselves. This is not just good scholarly practice; it is common sense.


4 – Wikipedia’s page on Herodotus

Now let’s take a look at the supporting information provided by the Herodotus page on wikipedia.

Screenshot 24-Oct-2017 – Wikipedia entry for Herodotus.

To the untrained eye, this certainly seems impressive. It looks so academic and formal: all of those dot points, ISBNs and italicised words. Fancy.

Now let’s take a closer look: the oldest English translation on that list is from 1849. The oldest critical edition is from 1908.

English is supposed to be at least several hundred years old. According to history, William Caxton was printing in English in the 1400s, and the King James Bible was printed in English in the 1600s. Does it strike you as peculiar that the oldest listed translation of the most important work of ‘history’, written by the ‘father of history’, entitled Histories, is dated to 1849?

Think about this for a moment. The people you are surrounded by every day get their ‘knowledge’ from the TV and, if they are curious to learn more, from websites like Wikipedia.

The wikipedia entry for Herodotus, the top result if one googles ‘Herodotus’, lists as the oldest critical edition or translation, a book from 1849.

KEY: The oldest translation of Herodotus’ Histories listed by his wikipedia page is from 1849.


5 – Wikipedia’s page on Herodotus – references

Now let’s take a look at the references from that same wikipedia page. These are the sources cited within the article itself. Every major claim made within the article is supposed to be referenced, and the references should effectively provide the curious reader with a clear indication as to where the purported information can be found and verified.

Most people do not bother to check the references of the wikipedia articles they read. It is my opinion that 99+% of visitors to the wikipedia page in question will never attempt to verify even a single reference. The fancy-looking footnotes will, however, bestow an air of credibility and academic rigour to the article. That is, the footnotes/references make the article look legitimate to the untrained eye.

But just how legitimate are these references?

Screenshot 24-Oct-2017 – Wikipedia entry for Herodotus.

The first thing you might notice is that most of these sources are relatively recent, dated from the 1970s through to today.

In fact, of the 98 references cited throughout the article, more than three quarters are explicitly dated within the last fifty years.

The bulk of the remainder are references to Rawlinson (1859).

The second thing you might notice is that these references are, with just a few exceptions, all secondary/tertiary sources.

In fact, of the 98 references cited throughout the article, only two of them are to Herodotus’ Histories.

Put another way, in the entire wikipedia entry for Herodotus, only two of the 98 references go directly to the words of the man in question.

The tiny proportion of people who follow those two references to their source will find that they are from a 1920 translation by A. D. Godley.

Screenshot 24-Oct-2017 – link.

KEY: Of the 98 references cited in this wikipedia article about Herodotus, only two are to Herodotus’ own work (i.e. primary sources), and both of those references are in fact to a 1920 translation of Herodotus’ Histories.

This alone should raise red flags in the mind of any objective, rational, thinking person. How can a multi-thousand word article about any figure of history – let alone the ‘father of history’ – contain only two direct references to words of the man in question? And why are those two references both to a source which is itself less than 100 years old?


6 – Godley’s translation of Herodotus

In any event, let’s take a look at that translation by Godley. Not only it is the only ‘primary source’ (direct) reference to Herodotus in the entire wikipedia article about him, but is is also one of the oldest sources listed in the Translations section.

Godley’s book is available in pdf from archive.org.

What we want to know is, what is the actual primary source on which Godley based his translation? Which work of Herodotus did Godley use to create his translation? Was it a manuscript stored in some exclusive library? Godley must have gotten his hands on a Herodotus original, surely…

Screenshot from the pdf.

…no. Godley’s translation is actually based on Stein’s translation. The image above is a screenshot of the pdf linked earlier, page xvii.

“The text which I have followed is that of Stein; in the few passages of any importance where I have thought fit to follow any other authority, the fact is noted.”

In other words, Godley’s translation is not of Herodotus’ words, but of Stein’s words, which are themselves supposedly a translation of Herodotus’ words.

You’ll note that Godley openly states that the ‘best’ sources are dated to the tenth and eleventh centuries.

KEY: Even on the most generous reading, the ‘best’ accounts of ‘Herodotus’ are from the tenth century i.e. 1400 years after his alleged existence.


7 – Stein’s translation of Herodotus

The more pressing concern is that Godley’s ‘translation’ is in fact based on somebody else’s translation. Let’s put that into a simple schematic:

Wikipedia -> ‘Herodotus’ -> Godley (1920) -> Stein (1883) -> Herodotus?

Remember that the entire wikipedia ‘Herodotus’ article contains 98 references but only two of them go to Herodotus, and as we can see here, they don’t really go to Herodotus: they go to Godley who in turn goes to Stein (who, we might be led to believe, at least sourced his translation from Herodotus).

Okay then, let’s see if Stein did indeed base his own work on the direct account of Herodotus.

After some digging I found a pdf copy of Stein’s work at the internet archive. It is dated to 1883 and printed entirely in German.

I don’t presently have sufficient time to type out the German from that pdf into google translate. If I did have that time, I would like to know where Stein claims to have found the original work of Herodotus – if indeed he claims to have based his work on Herodotus to begin with. I would not be the least bit surprised to find out that Stein either:

a) Offers no explanation of where he got his information, or
b) Admits that his own work is based on some other person’s ‘translation’

As it stands, we have spent some time tracing the sources given to us by wikipedia. Only two of the 98 references are to Herodotus, but neither of these are directly to Herodotus: they instead go to Godley’s 1920 translation. But Godley’s translation is not a translation of Herodotus, it is a translation of Stein. I can’t determine if Stein even claims to have based his translation on an original, because it is written entirely in German.

Again, look at what we are dealing with here, and bear in mind that ‘Herodotus’ is the ‘father of history’.

KEY: Wikipedia -> ‘Herodotus’ -> Godley (1920) -> Stein (1883) -> Herodotus?


8 – The process of primary source research

Tracing back to the primary sources regarding historical figures is incredibly time-consuming and laborious.

By now you may be getting some idea of how frustrating this type of research – that is, real research – can be, particularly when dealing with ‘history’.

Each step along the way, nobody has been upfront about their primary sources. None of the sources or authorities inspected so far have stated clearly, at the outset of their work, whether or not their information comes directly from Herodotus. If you put aside some time to try this for yourself, you will see the same pattern repeated over and over again.

Pick a character from ‘ancient history’.

Google searches will bring up tertiary sources such as wikipedia and Brittanica. These tertiary sources will cite and refer to other tertiary sources, and myriad secondary sources. They may occasionally refer to ‘primary‘ sources, but those ‘primary’ sources – when scrutinised – will in fact turn out to be secondary sources (generally written within the last 150 years). Those secondary sources will generally not be upfront about where they got their information; it will usually require copious reading through the preface/introduction/body of the text to find an explanation about the basis for their claims (if indeed any explanation is given at all).

It is like trying to make sense of a murder case in which every ‘witness’ bases his story – when asked – on hearsay from other ‘witnesses’. You want to know what happened at ‘time x’ and ‘place y’ and, although there are plenty of people claiming to know the truth, every single ‘witness’ depends on the testimony of somebody else. Did anybody actually see what happened? Can we talk to that guy? Or at least read what he wrote down? Did he write anything down at all? Has anybody seen it? Sure, but you’re going to have to talk to this other guy first, or read the translation of it from a book which doesn’t explain when or where the translator saw the original!

Note that none of the Ancient.eu article, History.com article, or Brittanica.com article provides a reference list or bibliography. The wikipedia page we have just dissected is the most ‘academic’ or ‘rigorous’ of the lot. Think about that for a moment.

KEY: Tracing back to the primary sources regarding historical figures is incredibly time-consuming and laborious.

It is worth pondering just why this might be the case…


9 – Wikipedia’s page on Herodotus’ work Histories

Now let’s take a look at wikipedia’s entry for Histories, the great (and only known) work by Herodotus. Perhaps this wikipedia entry can tell us where to find the original Herodotus (or, at least, where we can find the oldest copy of his work still in existence).

Screenshot 24-Oct-2017 – Wikipedia entry for Histories.

You’ll note that the Critical Editions and Translations lists are almost identical to those offered on the Herodotus page seen earlier.

Of interest to us is that this page does list Manuscripts i.e. the actual primary sources. Huzzah! We are getting somewhere!

The manuscripts of Herodotus’ Histories come from the ‘Papyrus Oxyrhynchus’, and we are even given specific numbers: 18, 19 and 2099.

Now that sounds serious.

Finally, JLB’s own research has debunked his theory that ancient history is all make-believe.

You may be smirking: ‘sucked in, smarty pants!’

There’s just one little problem…


ARE YOU READY FOR THIS? THERE’S NO TURNING BACK NOW…

No refunds. No apologies. You had your chance to turn back. I warned you. Oh how I warned you.

After seeing this, there will be no returning to Normieville as though nothing happened.

No listening to the truth clowns and truth charlatans who pretend to know what is actually going on.

Keep reading and you will be with me on the ‘other side’.

It is nice here, but there are not many of us. It can be lonely sometimes.


10 – Wikipedia’s page on the Oxyrhynchus Papyri

You might be wise enough to ask at once: What are the ‘Oxyrhynchus Papyri’?

What I am about to share with you, I first discovered for myself in early 2016.

But don’t let me spoil it for you. Go and take a look at the wikipedia page for yourself.

Go on, check it out. Come back here when you have had a look at it.


PLAY ALONG AT HOME

Seriously, go and take a look for yourself before reading the rest of this article. It will be more fun this way.


What did you notice?

When did Grenfell and Hunt ‘discover’ these papyri?

The late 1800s and early 1900s.

But that is less than 150 years ago!

Now how is this possible?

Surely Grenfell and Hunt’s papyri are not the alleged ‘primary sources’ which underpin the story of the ‘father of history’.

There is no way that 120-year-old papyri could be central to the official narrative of ‘ancient history’…

Screenshot 24-Oct-2017 – Link.

It could be a complete coincidence that the ‘papyrus’ used as the header image for the Histories page on wikipedia is itself from the Papyrus Oxyrhynchus.

Perhaps they have the real deal, an actual ancient text, sitting elsewhere, and they just used this as the header image for… ‘illustrative purposes’.

Perhaps.

Think about how the average lemming would perceive this wikipedia page. Think about how legitimate the image appears to the untrained eye. Think about how academic the words ‘Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 2099’ must seem to a man who does not know any better. Think about how much trust your fellow ‘human’ has in establishment, authority figures such as ‘historians’ — or, in the case of Grenfell and Hunt, ‘Egyptologists’.

Does the Lie System really need to reveal anything more than some papyri ‘discovered’ 120 years ago in order to convince the masses? Is anybody other than myself ever going to doubt these stories? Or spend the time required tracing back through the tertiary sources to the secondary sources, and then read through the secondary sources trying to find the primary sources?

My answer is no: TPWRTS do not need anything more than this. 2,400 years of ‘History’ can be created out of thin air — or ‘discovered’ the sands of ‘Oxyrhynchus’ in northern Africa by a couple of friends from Oxford.

Those who were children when Grenfell and Hunt made their amazing discoveries are all dead now.

In the time which has passed since then, ‘History’ has become reality.

And so much of our ‘reality’ today is premised on the notion that human civilisation is thousands of years old.

The average person alive today is convinced, on a fundamental psychological level, that civilisation is thousands of years old.

It is part of his worldview, the framework by which he understands and interacts with the world around him.

Like the fish who does not even notice he is swimming in water.

Ask the average normie if it is even possible that ‘ancient Egypt’ as we know it is make-believe. Go on, I dare you.

KEY: The ‘papyri’ which serve as the primary source evidence for Herodotus were ‘discovered’ around 1900 in Northern Egypt by two dudes from Oxford.


11 – Oxford confirms the story of Oxyrhynchus

Want to know more about this magical find of ancient documents? Look no further than Oxford’s own ‘Virtual Exhibition‘:

Almost nothing of [ancient Oxyrhynchus] remains. The stone was carted away for use elsewhere or burnt to produce lime to spread on the fields. A modern village now occupies part of the site. What Grenfell and Hunt found was the rubbish of Oxyrhynchus, which had been carried out and piled into a heap until it became more convenient to start another heap elsewhere, and so on. In the huge rubbish heaps were papyri, sometimes by the basketful, many rotted and fragile, but in such numbers that it took six seasons of excavation to bring them away. 65 volumes with transcripts, translations, and commentaries on the texts have been published so far. Vol. 66 is in preparation.

Yes, the papyri which Grenfell and Hunt ‘discovered’, thousands of years old, was actually the rubbish of ancient Oxyrhynchus. Still in good enough condition to read and translate, which the fine folk at Oxford have been doing, slowly but surely, ever since. What great fortune.

You can see a copy of the 1898 book released by Grenfell and Hunt about their discoveries here.

KEY: Oxford has an entire website section dedicated to Grenfell and Hunt, and their pioneering of ‘papyrology’.


12 – The bust of Herodotus

Are you ready for more? Let’s take another look at the header image for the wikipedia entry for Herodotus himself.

Screenshot 24-Oct-2017 – link.

Wow, that bust sure looks legitimate. Okay, it is a ‘Roman copy’, but the copy is still from 200AD, which is certainly more than 150 years ago, JLB!

‘How do you explain that one?’, you might ask.

Why don’t you tell me? Here is the relevant webpage of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, where the piece is on display.

Take a look at that page and tell me what you notice. Come back here once you have had a gander.


HAVE SOME FUN

Go on, take a look at the page for yourself. It really is more fun this way. Trust me.


Did you check the ‘provenance’ section? If so, you might have noticed this:

“Shortly before 1891, found in Benha (ancient Athribis), Lower Egypt, by Émile Brugsch Bey; 1891, purchased by George F. Baker, acquired in 1891, gift of George F. Baker.”

Discovered in the late 1800s. Well I would like to say that I’m surprised.

But you know I’m not.

For a bit of extra fun, here is the wikipedia entry for Mr George F Baker, the man who purchased and donated the bust.

Want some more fun? Here is the wikipedia entry for Emile Brugsch, the man who supposedly ‘discovered’ the bust.

KEY: The bust of Herodotus, the main image on his wikipedia page, was also ‘discovered’ in the late 1800s.


13 – Key concepts and ideas revised

Herodotus is a central figure of ‘ancient history’ and is considered by popular sources to the ‘father of history’.

Since we cannot read ancient Greek, we will accept as a ‘primary source’ a true translation of Herodotus’ words — so long as the original can itself can be identified for verification.

The oldest translation of Herodotus’ Histories listed by his wikipedia page is from 1849.

Of the 98 references cited in the wikipedia entry on Herodotus, only two are to his own work (i.e. primary sources), and both of those references are in fact to a 1920 translation of Herodotus’ Histories.

Even on the most generous reading, according to Herodotus scholars, the ‘best’ accounts of ‘Herodotus’ are from the tenth century i.e. 1400 years after his alleged existence.

Wikipedia -> ‘Herodotus’ -> Godley (1920) -> Stein (1883) -> Herodotus?

Tracing back to the primary sources regarding historical figures is incredibly time-consuming and laborious.

The ‘papyri’ which serve as the primary source evidence for Herodotus were ‘discovered’ around 1900 in Northern Egypt by two dudes from Oxford.

Oxford has an entire website section dedicated to Grenfell and Hunt, and their pioneering of ‘papyrology’.

The bust of Herodotus, the main image on his wikipedia page, was also ‘discovered’ in the late 1800s.


Note: This article has used Herodotus (and his Histories) to demonstrate what I am talking about when I refer to the ‘History Hoax’.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.


14 – There is no case – there never was!

By now the regular visitors to this website will be aware that Dark City (1998) is among my favourite films.

You will find Eddie in the banner of the site (yes, he’s there somewhere) and I have made reference to this particular scene many times.

It even features in the Welcome video which I recommended you watch (or re-watch) in the prologue of this article.

I’m tired of linking to a crappy YouTube upload of this scene so I took the liberty of rendering and uploading my own version just for this article.


15 – I know it ‘sounds crazy’, but…

My friends, I have been slowly but surely coming to terms with this for the best part of two years now.

‘Ancient history’ is all make believe. It never happened.

Or, at least, the ‘evidence’ on which these stories are based is incredibly recent and entirely unconvincing.

If you are willing to put in the time and effort to trace through the sources, as I have done, you can prove it for yourself.

It just takes time. Lots of time.

And it is a frustrating process. Dead-ends everywhere. As though the entire field of ‘history’ is designed to make it difficult to do what I have done here.

Tertiary sources which link to tertiary sources, secondary sources which rely on secondary sources.

Entire, elaborate stories about the lives of men who whose actual words are few and far between.

Time after time. Event after event. Figure after figure. All based on scant (and sometimes non-existent) ‘primary’ evidence.

Primary evidence which has usually been ‘discovered’ in the last 150 years.

And nobody else knows about this.

At least, not in our little corner of the internet.

I can only imagine that secret schools and elite organisations are well aware that history is a hoax.

Then again, I am also open to other possibilities. It may be that even those near the ‘top’ are oblivious, a’la the the Outer Party in George Orwell’s 1984.

It may even be that those at the very ‘top’ are oblivious, as was to be the case in The Village (2004).

I can go into more detail about this another time.

Either way, among those on our level, it is my honest suspicion that the only people who know what I am sharing with you now are myself, yourself, and whoever else is subscribed to this website and takes the time to read these articles.

We are talking a few dozen people, tops.

Millions (‘billions’ – lol) of people around the world, thousands of independent ‘researchers’ and ‘truth-tellers’ on the internet…

…and you could fit the number of people who know about all of this (at our level) into a decently-sized lounge room.


16 – I could be wrong

Please, prove me wrong.

It is possible that I have overlooked something, and it is also possible that I have completely lost my mind.

Find the evidence that I have failed to find. Track down the proof that Herodotus was a real guy who ‘existed’ before the 1800s.

Have fun!


Read the Addendum to this piece

Member questions answered, more evidence revealed to demonstrate the hoaxery involved.


UPDATES

3-Nov-2017: Herodotus, Histories, and related topics are central focus of Full Member Video Update #07 available here.


Useful Sources [to be updated]

Cary’s ‘translation’ (1876) – link.

Godley’s ‘translation’ (1920) – link.

Hereen’s book (1838) – link.

Stein’s ‘translation’ (1883) – link.


Credits

The production of this article, as with all new content on this website, was facilitated by the support of the following individuals. Without their financial contributions, none of this would be possible at this point in time. If there existed more people like the following, perhaps the ‘truth’ scene might not be so bereft of quality research and material.

(Full Members as at 24-Oct-2017)

Alistair Caine | alphaxomega | Big Dave | Chad628 | dbuser | Dante from NY | DJMoe1987 | G Malicious | Hando | Harry Ell | Jimmy Scoular | Jumpy64 | Nate M | local_chump | mas | Mezzie | Negentropic | PJG | Rebel | Shirt Ninja | Silvertree | Stansen | Sts1316 | TheProphet49 | TheyAreLaughingAtUs | Tikielimited | Tomfoolery | Wattzupsport


Production Notes

Originally published 24-Oct-2017.
Minor update (final proofread) 25-Oct-2017.
Addendum added 26-Oct-2017.
Released to Freeloader members 21-Aug-2018.

Original article written entirely on 24-Oct-2017, mostly at cafe, partly at home.

Made available publicly per JLBA #57 8-Dec-2020.
Slight update to the Addendum link at bottom of article 12-Mar-2021.


 

20 thoughts on “The History of ‘Histories’

  • 14-May-2020 at 7:25 pm
    Permalink

    JLB, I wanted to answer your last comment here, but I don’t see any comments on this page anymore. What happened?

    • 15-May-2020 at 8:47 am
      Permalink

      WordPress is acting up and hid all the comments . . . again.

      Maybe JLB can copy and paste all the comments (there were way more than this last round) onto the forum and we can continue our discussion over there.

      I know it’s a lot of work but maybe there’s an easy way to do it.

      The latest member video explains what happened. Check it out.

        • 16-May-2020 at 3:57 pm
          Permalink

          I have a copy of your comment, JLB’s reply, and my reply to JLB safely saved on my computer. WordPress starting acting up just as I was about to post my reply, which is really unfortunate…

          (Jumpy, you might want to check the forum by the way)

          • 16-May-2020 at 5:06 pm
            Permalink

            It is a good idea to save all of these comments to your computer, in case the guy who runs this website is, like, deleting the comments because he doesn’t have time to waste on Figure Eights 😉

            • 16-May-2020 at 7:01 pm
              Permalink

              It is not a “Figure Eight” to find a digitized version of a manuscript of Herodotus’ Histories written in ancient Greek that is purported to date back to the early 15th-century, that can be freely consulted online by anyone, and that has a detailed chain of provenance. Indeed, it is directly relevant to some of the claims in this article, even if it does not “prove” that Herodotus existed or that he lived 2000+ years ago.

              https://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Harley_MS_6312

              Similarly, it is not a “Figure Eight” to find a Wikipedia page listing the locations of the manuscripts claimed to be the original sources for Caesar’s The Civil Wars, as it is directly relevant to the following claim “I have established that primary sources either do not exist (or cannot be found) in one specific example where they are claimed to exist (i.e. Caesar’s The Civil Wars)” from this article:
              https://www.johnlebon.com/articles/burning-the-library-of-alexandria-part-ii/

              https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentaires_sur_la_Guerre_civile#Les_manuscrits_sources

              And yes, as I wrote in one of my comments which unfortunately “disappeared”, it is fine to question the validity of the counter-evidence, as long as the same scrutiny is applied to the claims made in the article(s).

              • 16-May-2020 at 9:30 pm
                Permalink

                We are all well aware that wikipedia and other outlets claim that there exists books which are X years old.

                The issue is whether or not we can verify the provenance or chain of custody of these texts.

                You have shown no evidence of even trying to verify the purported ages for yourself. You have merely repeated the official stories.

                We can keep going around in this figure eight but it will only waste my time and the time of anybody else who reads the thread.

                This is why I am no longer going to approve ANY of your comments on this article. Period. I’ve wasted enough time already.

                What I can offer to do for you is to publish an MC on this site, for all to read and comment upon, of your beliefs / opinions / arguments / research / evidence / whatever.

                This way you get to share and discuss whatever it is you think you are providing with your commentary.

                Meanwhile the comment section of my content is not polluted with your figure-eight go-nowhere rhetorical nonsense.

                All you need to do is type up your beliefs / opinions / arguments / research / evidence / whatever and send it through to me as a doc or pdf file.

                I will then publish it as an MC on this site asap.

                You can decide if your MC is attributed to ‘MX’ or to ‘Gaia’.

                If it turns out that you do in fact present actual research in your presentation, I might even engage with you in the comment section of your piece.

                If instead you simply continue to parrot the official story, with no attempt at verification of the provenance of the texts, and/or continue to pretend you don’t know what the word ‘hoax’ means, then I’ll probably steer clear, but all other Members will be welcome to comment and interact with you about your work.

                Cheers.

              • 16-May-2020 at 10:32 pm
                Permalink

                If you don’t understand the difference between stories and evidence, this probably isn’t the place for you.

                The ownership/providence section of your first link is hilarious! I will paste it in full and highlight some dead giveaways to its hoax cred –

                “Provenance:Inscribed on parchment fragment probably cut from earlier binding and now pasted onto f 60 ‘1449 die inc a | pralis | Herodotus Petri Mann[.] etc’. Inscribed c.1600 ‘Reverendo Misser Pauolo’ (ff 23v, 36r). Owned by the Jesuit College, Agen (f 1r; Fontes p. 48).The Harley Collection, formed by Robert Harley (b. 1661, d. 1724), 1st earl of Oxford and Mortimer, politician, and Edward Harley (b. 1689, d. 1741), 2nd earl of Oxford and Mortimer, book collector and patron of the arts. Edward Harley bequeathed the library to his widow, Henrietta Cavendish, née Holles (b. 1694, d. 1755) during her lifetime and thereafter to their daughter, Margaret Cavendish Bentinck (b. 1715, d.1785), duchess of Portland; the manuscripts were sold by the Countess and the Duchess in 1753 to the nation for £10,000 (a fraction of their contemporary value) under the Act of Parliament that also established the British Museum; the Harley manuscripts form one of the foundation collections of the British Library.”

                Do you not find it odd that, like I said before, all these “ancient manuscripts” somehow make their way through Oxford and/or Cambridge? You claimed in another comment that there are plenty of things that don’t run through there. Please present evidence of that claim in your Member Creation.

                What about the Cavendish family being involved? No alarm bells going off in your head? Oh yeah, I forgot, you believe in Space and flying rocks since you’re a “geologist”. Trolol

                I have 3 simple questions that I would love to see answered in your MC – 1. how do you know what “Ancient Greek” looks like?; 2. Can you find a single “Ancient manuscript” that doesn’t somehow run through The Vatican, Oxford, or Cambridge?; and 3. Do you have any evidence to support your belief that paper can survive for hundreds of years?

                I think that will make for an excellent MC in support of all the history realologist out there.

                Finally, do you believe that JLB hid ALL the comments on the entire site, just to hide your jibberish? Ego much?

            • 20-May-2020 at 1:56 am
              Permalink

              JLB, I know you’re probably trying to be funny with your comment and the smiley face, but I’m afraid that it may also sound as an admission of guilt, considering how you seem to dislike M.X’s comments, and I frankly don’t understand why.

              They seem to me very sensible and to the point, while your replies (and those by watermanchris) appear unnecessarily rude and derogatory. And now you’ve even banned M.X. from commenting again on this article, while offering him a space to publish his observations and research somewhere else as a sweetener.

              Since M.X,’s previous comments have been deleted, I cannot list those that I found more pertinent, as you asked me (in a comment that’s been deleted as well, by the way), so I’ll just sum up what I think about your research on the “history hoax” thing, which resonated with M.X.’s observations about it.

              Your research on Herodotus’ Histories has cast serious doubts on the veracity of the historical character called “Herodotus” and his alleged work “Histories”, and consequently of History as a discipline in general. But even if you had demonstrated conclusively that Herodotus never existed and that his magnum opus is a work of fiction (although M.X.’s research seems to disagree with the “conclusively” part, and personally I don’t know because I haven’t digged into this myself, but his observations once again seem pertinent to me), from this, as from other demonstrable instances of historical fakery, which are actually abundant at least in recent history) you can suspect that the whole of history has been fabricated, and you may even be right, but I don’t see how it can be said that you have factually demonstrated that all of history is a hoax.

              Quite simply, you haven’t produced enough evidence to support your claim. And this not for any particular fault on your part, in my opinion (except maybe a touch of hubris), but simply because it is an impossible task, especially for a single researcher, no matter how brilliant or dedicated. Maybe a team of dedicated researchers could do it in a few years, like for example Simon Shack and other researchers on Cluesforum have conclusively demonstrated 9 11 fakery, or at least try, but it would still be quite a daunting task.

              Also because, as I remember M.X. observing in one or more of his disappeared comments, you must demonstrate that artistic masterpieces in history (including many you don’t even know, because no single person can know them all) have been faked in just a couple hundred years or so and how. And to that I add historical monuments, when they’ve actually been built and how.

              It’s difficult even to make a list of historical things that may have been faked, imagine to demonstrate conclusively that they have been faked. Impossible, I think.

              Therefore, while I appreciate your research and intuition on historical facts (including wars), I think blanket statements like “History is a hoax” or “all wars are hoaxes” are unsubstantiated, and ultimately impossible to substantiate conclusively.

              If you want to debate this point with someone who questions it, go ahead and good luck, but I don’t think you can do it convincingly by verbally attacking and denigrating them, like you did with M.X.

              I’m not saying this things to piss you off, because that doesn’t interest me in the least nor give me any kind of pleasure. I’m not even interested in debating you further on this, and in fact I didn’t even want to comment, but when I saw someone voicing in a very civil way reasonable doubts similar to mine on your claims, I though it was only right to speak out in his favor, also because everybody else was attacking him, often in much less civil ways.

              I hope this comment won’t disappear as well, but even if it does, it’s enough for me if you read it, JLB, although I think M.X.’s observations deserve some support here.

              I promise not to comment further on this, anyway, also because I don’t wish to participate in what, far from being a dispute based on facts and evidence, seems to have become just a battle of opinions, which doesn’t interest me anymore, once I’ve expressed mine.

              After that, we can agree to disagree, as you like to say, and call it quits. So you won’t even need to ban me too 😉

              • 20-May-2020 at 2:50 am
                Permalink

                Jumpy, I think you are in the same boat as mx re history. I would ask you, who is making the first claim? Is it the conventional history? Was that claim substantiated well, do you think? Should it be accepted as a default because it was already in place when you were taught it?

                If that original claim is unsubstantiated, and JLB or whoever along and shows that, why does he have to do anything else? He is showing the evidence does not support the claim. The hypothesis we had is out the window. Should we tweak the original? Perhaps, but this should be driven by the evidence. JLB doesn’t need to provide a better story.

                PS I think JLB has said there is a technical issue with comments disappearing.

              • 20-May-2020 at 2:51 am
                Permalink

                I don’t see how it can be said that you have factually demonstrated that all of history is a hoax.

                I haven’t demonstrated that all of history is a hoax, and I haven’t claimed to have demonstrated that all of history is a hoax.

                What I have done is take the time to trace the sources of several key narratives and characters of history and shown that the evidence does not support the story we are given.

                The sources appear to go back a couple hundred years, perhaps a few hundred years if we are being generous.

                Given that I have gotten the same result from every single attempt at tracing the sources for various narratives and characters of history, I have drawn the inference that all of them — all of the characters, all of the narratives — are equally fabricated.

                The easiest way for yourself, Gaia/MX, or anybody else to contradict my inference, would be to take the time to trace the sources of some narrative or character of history, and document it for others to see. I would happily publish such research on this very website, an offer I have made to both yourself and Gaia/MX.

                For some reason, neither of you have done that, either because you are too lazy to put in the time and effort to do this kind of work, or because you have tried and failed to verify the sources of whatever narrative or character of history you have looked into.

                Which is it? Laziness or failure?

                Either way, MX has been invited to submit an MC of whatever he believes his ‘research’ to reveal. What he is no longer welcome to do is play his rhetorical games in the comments section of my research articles.

                He was given ample opportunity to play with the big boys, and what did he do? Revert to the Figure Eight nonsense which has been his bread and butter for years now.

                Nobody has to agree with me about anything on this site; however, if you want to sit there in the comments section of my work and claim that my research is flawed, you’d be well advised to back up your own claims, especially when given several chances to do so.

                I think blanket statements like “History is a hoax” or “all wars are hoaxes” are unsubstantiated, and ultimately impossible to substantiate conclusively.

                That’s fine, you are welcome to say that ‘some history is a hoax’, however this would imply that some history is real, and if that is the case, I’d like to see the research which led you to this position, to inspect it for myself.

                Have you done that research? Where can I inspect it?

                I think M.X.’s observations deserve some support here.

                The best way for either of you to ‘support the observations’ will be to produce the research.

                Again, you are both welcome to send me a doc or pdf of your research and I will gladly publish it as an MC on this very site.

                Are either of you going to take up this invitation?

                After that, we can agree to disagree, as you like to say, and call it quits.

                Indeed. Let’s agree to disagree. I’m always happy to do so.

                Agreeing to disagree does not include polluting the comments section of my work with empty rhetoric to undermine my conclusions, without providing a shred of contradictory research.

                I hope this is all clear by now.

                I’ve said before that there’s a part of me which did not enjoy what happened to Antonio and Reds Rhetoric et al during my respective altercations with them.

                These are guys who are external to my operation, and who set themselves up as my adversaries.

                Even with these people, a part of me does not enjoy what happens to them when they foolishly try to undermine my research with empty rhetoric.

                How do you think I feel about typing up the comment you have just read?

                On my own website, in response to people to who at least ostensibly support my operation, do you think I enjoy this kind of interaction?

                This is the last place I want to have to go down this path.

                If anybody wants to set themselves up as my adversary, I’d much rather they do it externally i.e. away from this site.

                That way I can ignore them completely — or, if I feel so inclined, treat them the way I have treated certain adversaries in the past.

                There’s a big difference between collegiate and adversarial discourse. I cannot be any more clear about this.

  • 20-May-2020 at 4:34 am
    Permalink

    Thank you, JLB, for your quick reply, and for specifying that yours is just an inference. I think myself that each single part of history could be fabricated, or at least twisted or spinned in different ways, so we would even agree 100% if you used the conditional too. But I don’t think everything has been faked starting from just a few hundreds years ago. Can I prove this conclusively? No, and I wouldn’t even try, so you can call it an unsubstantiated opinion, I don’t mind.

    Is it because of laziness on my part? Well, maybe, but I’d rather call it insufficient interest, since history has never attracted me much. I’ve always found it impossible to discover exactly what happened in the distant past, especially when I started seeing how people in power are able to falsify even the present, which remains the focus for me anyway. The present, I mean.

    So my observations here are not from me as a “fellow researcher”, but from me as part of your audience. And maybe I’m also giving you hints that may stimulate your research for my and other members’ entertainment (if you wanna call it that, since you define yourself also as an entertainer). I try to do it respectfully because I respect your research, even when I find it unconvincing, and I apologize if sometimes this respect doesn’t show enough.

    And talking about hints that I could give you, which of course you can disregard completely if you so choose, I think that your case on the history hoax would be more convincing if you managed to demonstrate that also some monuments or works of art like paintings or musical pieces (by Bach or Mozart, for example), and not just books, have been fabricated. But don’t ask me to do that because, as I said, I don’t have enough interest for doing it.

    But, as part of your audience, I would love to see that, although I wouldn’t even demand this extra effort on your part, because I know you already do a lot of valuable research for a single person, if it wasn’t because your inferences sound too “grandiose” sometimes (for lack of a better word).

    Too grandiose for a researcher, I mean, but probably not for an entertainer, so I guess it depends on what hat you choose to wear each time. 😉

    I enjoy them both, anyway, so I take the opportunity to thank you again for your work. And your patience in answering me this time. I appreciate it.

    • 20-May-2020 at 6:23 am
      Permalink

      I’m going to but in again (last time, sorry), to provide two sources of information I found on major historical characters.

      This interview expresses some major issues re Mozart.

      And here’s a great breakdown of Leonardo da Vinci‘s sfumato painting technique. 40 applications at 25 micrometers​ each, is what gives LdV his no-brush-stroke ‘style’.

      In my opinion, there is no reason to believe any of the history as the evidence and experts presenting it are a bust. There are old artifacts there, but who can say anything about them? Eg Rome’s coliseum, 2000 years old, or 300? A gladiatorial arena, or a water reservoir? Who can say?

      • 21-May-2020 at 1:41 am
        Permalink

        No need to be sorry, Al. On the contrary, thank you for providing two interesting sources of information, that I will check out ASAP.

        I think my last answer to JLB answers another comment of yours as well.

        As I said there, I am open to the possibility, and even substantial probability, that everything in history is a fabrication. What I have problems for is mainly the timeline: just a few hundreds year for producing all the variety expressed by the various artistic forms of the world, and also in fields like architecture, for example, seem far too little to me.

        Probably you and many other members here live in the “new world”, where things are generally pretty modern and relatively uniform, but if you ever go to Europe, and Italy especially, I think the sheer variety of styles you can find would make it much more difficult for you to wrap your head around the possibility that everything started 300 years ago or so.

        That in particular seems to me something that you cannot prove but just believe, and I choose not to believe in anything I cannot prove for whatever reason, including lack of means and/or sufficient interest.

        • 21-May-2020 at 2:31 am
          Permalink

          🙂

          I’m familiar with the older world too, not Italy but Greece. And London, which has some old bits as well as museums. In Greece I have noticed that there is metal at the center of some of the ancient columns, at least occasionally. The metal looked original, old. This said to me that it was possible that the column pieces were not carved but cast. Where do I put that personal experience?

          So, I have problems with the timeline too. I have dismissed the standard narrative, but I can’t even imagine how I could establish a better one. The evidence doesn’t to be there, and I’m not minded to accept the standard narrative.

          I’m open to the idea of resets, where in previous times perhaps there have been cataclysmic events. I have seen half buried houses for myself. I can’t think why any architect would design houses in that way! Additionally, there are lots of interesting ‘now and then’ photos to support the idea that earth was deposited around existing houses (they were buried but have now been excavated). I don’t even know that deserts are that old, etc.

          So while I would probably put my money on the idea that history stretches back continuously, I don’t think there’s much chance we will ever know it. I’m open to JLBs idea/hypothesis that it was all just created recently, or that the board is swept of people occasionally but that the scenery remains, or even that time is not the set thing we think and may speed up and slow down imperceptibly. (Seems fast at present!) I’ve no reason to think these ideas are true either though, they are (possibly outlandish) possibilities that I have yet to eliminate. I bear them in mind though, as I also consider the experience of the turkey. In its ignorance the turkey believes it is well cared and provided for, only to have to undergo a sudden reappraisal of belief at Christmas!

          We just don’t know what we don’t know. Best to base it on the evidence, where there is some, and to dismiss proven liars and their lies. IMO.

        • 25-May-2020 at 4:30 am
          Permalink

          I think what this ‘fake history’ angle ultimately comes down to is: can time (and its tie-is-me timed-up and tied-up tameness) be stretched out through mass perception and conception, through symbolic revolutions and re-imaginings? Can 3000 years be squeezed into 300? But what kinds of 3000 years and what kinds of 300 years? Can they even be of the same quality?

          Is it possible, given our current experienced rate of growth as human beings to become this ‘beautifully organic’ within the bounds and limitations imposed by that same concept of time? What is a human being according to us and were there other concepts of human beings that we have not been able to access due to our programming? Such as human beings living to 200 years instead of an average of 75 years of pharmaceutically imposed routine of animal training and farming, a system of energy vampirism that passes for a a ‘real and natural’ life? But again, what kind of 200 years and what kind of 75?

          Maybe living 200 years of a mechanized and robotic life isn’t even worth 5 years of living in Italy at its best period according to those who have lived there long enough to be able to judge changes in standards of living or the pleasure you can get from day to day living? The quality of life, regardless of the declared economic standards. Certain places may have a low standard of living but a high quality of spiritual interaction of extended-family-comradship with their fellow human beings. That has to be factored in because that makes life more worth living and therefore through more ferment comes more culture and through more culture, more technologies that truly benefit us rather than register on an economic chart, etc.

          To what extent are we authentic and to what extent are we programmed beings ruled by our symbolic landscape which was mostly given to us and our ancestors for as long as we have been personally able to experience?

          None of us knows personal experience beyond that of meeting maybe our grandparents or great-grandparents, but we did not experience their level of immersion in the present, anymore than the current generation’s feeling for how quick time is passing by would be experienced by us 50-plus year olds in the 1980s and 1970s. Also, when you are a kid of 10, three years seemed like such a long time. High School alone, those three years, seemed to go on forever, just the 3 months of every summer seemed to make you so-much older and so-much a different person than the year before, whereas nowadays, between 2017 and today? It seems that no time has passed at all and very few things have been learned. Things just get more and more polished or not that were maybe learned many years ago.

          Drastic hormonal changes in our bodies do not occur like they did in our teenage years (they can, to a certain extent, with high intensity intervals training and the release of HGH, but that’s another topic). What are the teenage years of a society and what are the mature years and what are the decaying years? Are we now in the decaying years? How long before we get back to the infancy and childhood years again? Isn’t that the true reset? And how can there be any true ‘reset’ at all outside of entirely new constructs of language and communication?

          So, no, elite-imposed ‘resets’ are to make sure that people are forced back into their psychologically enforced extortion rackets and nothing more. There is no indirect ‘enlightenment’ goal of the secretly ‘benevolent’ elites playing ‘jokes’ on those who deserve to be bamboozled, as some on this very website had Stockholm-Syndromed themselves into believing before the anagram for carnivorous PsyOp put a lock on all our asses at once. The indirect enlightenment after all the dust settles and the psychic vampires have no more blood left to drain, that can only come from the force described as ‘mother nature’ or ‘god,’ the great leveler of the unnatural, the restorer of equilibrium points within and without.

          That force which is not farce but includes all man-made farces obviously needs all life to go on in a certain way for a certain purpose we have not yet quite figured out and maybe never will. That force is ultimately benevolent because the possibility of genuine pleasure (play-sure, living in a world where you can play and play-sure, where you know what to do and can do it well and take pleasure form that sureness) or what creates benevolence is something that exists and can be experienced. Fear and what creates malevolence can also be experienced. Both are necessary to balance each other out but healthy survival is a situation where areas where people can play-sure with their pleasures have been identified and the routines of navigating within these areas codified and made habit in that society. The pleasure of playing artificial man-made games within strict rules are analogs of real games of pleasure or displeasure, health or disease, have already been played for a long time in conquering nature more directly.

          Games make an art-form of natural challenges, so aspects of them can be experienced with pleasure in safe zones. These games are then bastardized so that those playing them move farther and farther away from the real and end up self-destructing or learning the wrong moves which will not work on ‘god’s or nature’s terms.’ Then to counter this degeneration, other groups spring up that are ‘back to nature,’ and on and on. All you need to do is screw with the foundations a bit, with some fakery, and entire structures are perverted and set on their way for crumbling down civilizations. It’s similar to con-job of the empty Pavlovian plates that were once full and now get masses of doggies salivating at every ring of the same but now w-rung bell. The rite or ritual that ensure the t-root has been gradually removed. Mission accomplished.

          https://files.catbox.moe/ruvibm.jpg

          https://files.catbox.moe/cadn5s.jpg

          https://files.catbox.moe/beqab2.jpg

          https://files.catbox.moe/xp3bgz.jpg

  • 20-May-2020 at 12:00 pm
    Permalink

    Hi Jumpy,

    I think you may be missing the point.  JLB (as well as myself, TNG, daibpdaibp, al, and anybody else who has gone looking) has done hours and hours (hundreds of hours?) of research into various stories of “history” and has hit the “wire frame mesh” every time.  Based on that research, he has drawn the inference that all of what we are told about history is untrue and history only goes back  200-300 years. He never said the authorities don’t have stories. He’s saying that when he tried to double- check their claims, he could only get back a couple hundred years.

    What Gaia/MX has done is perform a Google search, found a story, and repeated it here in the comments section of this piece.  He basically said – this “looks old” and the experts are saying it’s old, so JLB is wrong.

    When challenged on the fact that organic materials cannot last 500+ years, he resorted to ad hominem saying that I “know nothing”.  He didn’t cite evidence.  When asked about the oldest book he had ever personally held in his hand, he just said “I’ve held a bunch of them but I’m not going to tell you which ones”.  This is the exact same thing he did when JLB challenged him back in 2017 on his alleged “family history” that supposedly went back 700 years or something.   He has a pattern of this so hopefully you can forgive JLB’s (and my) frustration with his antics.

    JLB asked him what he has done to verify the claims of the documents he linked to.  His response never came.

    He also challenged JLB’s research in another article on the fraud that is “peer review”.  JLB said many (most?) academic journals are basically pay to publish.  He disagreed with the research and cited 2 journals (out of the thousands of journals currently in publication) that allegedly aren’t pay to publish.  So, Gaia clearly shows a pattern of arguing minutia without actually supporting his position that the research is wrong. He is well indoctrinated into the cult of scientism as a “Geologist”. He believes in dinosaurs, spinning ball earth, flying rocks, history, evolution, Peer Review and many of the other tenets of scientism.

    We have seen this too many times before to bother wasting time with it, especially in the comments section of a well- researched piece.

    Please check out this piece from November of 2017 to understand how long JLB has been putting up with this nonsense from “M.X.” https://www.johnlebon.com/?s=Gaia

    I will also caution anybody thinking that Gaia is an ally, whether it be in the war against Fakeology by the realologists, or in any other context. He has had a falling out with every person I have witnessed him “befriend” – Faye/Misom, Geris, Rollo, Mark Tokarski to name 4.

    As JLB has offered to publish any of Gaia’s history realology as an MC, I’m not sure what the complaint is.

    Setting Gaia aside, I haven’t been able to gather what your thoughts on history are based on your comments. From what I’ve seen, they don’t seem to be very well fleshed out, and please don’t take that as a criticism. I’m genuinely trying to help you work it out. You obviously know that just about everything we were taught in school is wrong. The history that will be written about this Coronavirus hoax, will look nothing like what we are actually living through. They are fabricating numbers and stories in real time, even though people are making videos showing the empty hospitals and nurses are twerking on Tik Tok despite the media claiming they are overrun and the bodies are piling up. Do you really find it such a stretch to imagine that the stories they tell us about the long ago are also fabricated? Do you think it’s possible to know what people were doing or saying thousands of years ago? If you can see that they are obviously lying about the words that were written or spoken, why can’t the entire story be fabricated?

    It seems that most of us that know that the TV lies WANT to believe that there was a time, when people were more free, and the people who run the show weren’t in charge. JLB’s history hoax work causes one to realize that that probably wasn’t the case, especially since all the magic documents that can last hundreds or thousands of years go through Oxford, Cambridge and or The Vatican.

    Basically, what I’m asking is – Where do you believe hoaxery ends and his story begins? Is there a date for that in your mind? What do you think about this record from the National Archives in the US documenting the 1876 “restoration” of the Declaration of Independence that was supposedly only drafted 100 years prior? Take the time to actually click the link as it will tell you that many of the signatures were unreadable after only 100 years! Are we to believe that American documents from the late 1700s were made of inferior materials to those used thousands of years prior by the “Ancient Greeks”? That only makes sense if you believe the ridiculous story of “the dark ages” where technology went backwards. All organic materials, bones, flesh, plant matter, pigments etc will return to their natural state (dust) if left alone. How did these “manuscripts” avoid this fate? Why don’t any “normal” people find 2,000 year old paper?

    I’m sorry of it feels like I’m interrogating you. That is not my intention. I’m am genuinely curious where you stand and why. Maybe I am missing something.

    • 21-May-2020 at 2:05 am
      Permalink

      Ciao Watermanchris, and thank you for your interesting and kind comment, in which you make very good points. And don’t worry, I don’t feel interrogated at all, your questions are all legitimate, although I’m not sure I can answer them.

      As for where I stand and why, I think I’ve answered this question in my previous answers to JLB’s and Al’s comments.

      I hope you won’t consider rude my invitation to read them. Otherwise, please tell me and I’ll copy and paste the most relevant parts for you, no problem.

Leave a Reply