How much of history do you think is fake?

The Rabbit Hole
#47

When everyone stops arguing over timescales and how to measure them, I’ll put more stock in when. Given the constant calendar shifts, it’s the easiest bit to manipulate in more recent history. You could discover a document with a date, forge it, and change the date to have it support or supplant the narrative you’ve got in your sights.

And that’s not even getting into perspective and motivation. We face those problems in empirical studies as it is (subtle manipulations to make something seem true when it is objectively misleading); let alone some long-dead historian who could’ve been offered a bag of gold or his life to write what was desired.

1 Like
#48

Time can be tested up to some degree of accuracy, although fraud occurs even now when some use ancient materials and construct something completely never exisitong from them, write over the ancient stone, etc.

1 Like
#49

Eh, I need to study more on it. My concern is that time is based on half-lives we’ve never actually witnessed in their full cycle.

It’s like the speed of light problem. We don’t know the one-way speed of light, we know the round trip speed and we make an assumption. “But it’s mathematically sound”; so is string theory, how’s that working out for us?

I don’t have enough evidence or proof to even want to try to convince anyone, but it’s been a gut check for a long time now.

1 Like
#50

Usually, for the most part, people agree on time-line, at least going back a few thousands years.

However, there are people who deny history altogether, or rather our current historical data.

Fomenko comes to mind.

Anyway,

That’s valid.

Heres the thing.
History rarely presents a historians pov as absolute truth.
They usually say/mention according to (insert historian).

But the thing is that for the most part, people from different backgrounds agree on many if not most events.
The details and motives and how’s differ though.

#51

Completely agreed. The books published by the groups funded by the world governments and their backers do mostly agree on what.

1 Like
#52

Yeah, we can also say that the elites imposed certain narratives on a world scale…

If we want to go there.

However, as @igem presented, there’s Scientific ways to look at the data.

1 Like
#53

Radioisotopes are only one of the tests, originally Fluorine absorption dating - Wikipedia was used and other methods were developed, compared one to one. They are calibrated.

2 Likes
#54

Considering less than 100 years ago most of the major world powers were either ruled/influenced by a small grouping of several extended families or their shared, equally small list of financiers and they were funding all the archaeology and historical investigations of the time… I don’t expect you to accept it on its head, but it should provide some reasonable doubt.

The point that I’m trying to make more than anything is that all the tools and mechanisms and records by which you’re certain of some things were centralized into power structures over a thousand years ago and some of those institutions, at least, never went away. So yes, it’s entirely possible there’s been a narrative and incentive to keep pushing it.

1 Like
#55

Yeah, I know what you’re saying.

Also, I doubt everything.

However, I do go with certain views.

I’m Malleable.

Example: If a regime comes tomorrow and says you don’t have the right to believe or say that, I’ll easily comply - heck I value my life over some events from the past.

1 Like
#56

This is getting too politicised, but considering different empires corresponding to same extended family is grossly inaccurate and ignores Eastern nations. Also even distantly (so much that it hardly ever mattered, except when addressing for painting a family tree) connected like British Empire and Russian Empire were so far apart and competitive to each other that I wouldn’t consider such thought at all to hold up.

It’s like omitting Ottoman Empire from world view completely or Japan, or China, or India, or Africa, etc.

1 Like
#57

Indeed. This is a great point.

1 Like
#58

I’ve reworded the original statement to fall in line with where my brain was at when I wrote it. I think the term politicized is grossly misused here, but I digress.

Stay fluid in your belief and you should be fine either way.

2 Likes
#59

People are gonna believe whatever they want to believe.
The matrix offers a belief system for every taste.
Most belief systems are ego filters and ego blinders anyways.
Facts and objective data is often ignored because of these.
There are still people who believe the C virus doesn’t exist, so no need to go back in history lol.
Or even here on the forum, there are peope who believe in morphic fields but don’t believe in aliens and angels – despite th fact that there are fields available for those.
People are gonna believe whatever they want to believe.

About history verification:
We will find out / remember when back into the afterlife / astral planes, for the “akashic records” etc.
And even there, on the astral, there are folks who refuse to study the recordings – all so that they can continue to believe whatever they want to believe :woozy_face: :crazy_face:

1 Like
#60

They (would) call it the “Akashic Narrative” :rofl: (conspiracies theories are everywhere)

1 Like
#61

Absolutely!
Even more so on the astral planes.
Because people there can even more manifest their personal reality bubbles, and even isolate themselves completely in their own virtual worlds and then get lost in their own narratives.
At least, here in the physical, we have somewhat of an enforced shared reality.

1 Like