Is this the next step in conspiracy retardation? First we live in a dome and space doesn't exist, and now ancient civilizations didn't exist either? We inherited our belief systems from ancient sun worshipers so there goes your brilliant theory.

OP is probably a bible thumping creationist

Even I your link it suspects the writings they found were older than the 17th century. You really believe the Bible and therefore Christianity only started 200 years ago? You'd have to be stubborn to believe that regardless of all the evidence that invalidates that

I'm oddly interested in what exactly the original poster's world view is as well.

He doesn’t have one. He’s just being confrontational and doing so poorly. He’s probably some 19 year old fresh out of his first Philosophy class and feeling smart. If you question him, he tries to turn it...also poorly.

I'm reading what you're saying with a critical mind, you've failed to establish any reason why I should doubt the age of mankind or anything. I'm not sure what your conspiracy of history is here in its totality, are you saying the entire earth is no older than 1000 years or humans or just our ability to write?

What is the broader point in your conspiracy? That there's no such thing as the past? Are you suggesting that humans haven't evolved over millions of years? I'm not concerned about who found a copy of a Bible at which time, I'm more interested in the big picture of what you're saying

I wasn't comfortable with your claim and looked up, Codex Sinaiticus and discovered every site had a different story and I didn't feel like sorting them according to quality. So I'll skip any remark on that.

I do wonder why your final sentence dismisses your first two sentences and why you fail to present your view.

Ambiguity delivered by someone making a fuss about being specific is curious.

I am not interested in religion.

Ambiguity delivered by someone making a fuss about being specific is curious.

Oddly, this is why I like step2thejep’s musings. He makes you think, no spoonfeeding.

Care to share this 'extensive evidence'? I would have put that in the post at the top if it's that compelling.

This sub is in a state of disarray, but remember there is a quiet group who are actually quite interested in these ideas. Personally I've traced family history reliably back over 200 years so your idea is a little off to me, but it has a ring of truth. My oldest book isn't quite that age though if you've done much antique book searching the reason for the lack of 300 year old books shouldn't be that unbelievable

Indeed, nowhere near 2000 years and names get hazy after a certain period because names had a different function in the past (usually had to do with what you done in the community, smith, Stone, miller, etc) have you looked into philip k dick at all? His views on time are interesting maybe up your alley

you might want to try /r/AlternativeHistory

I think people are taking issue with your 200 years old comment, when you'll find a lot of us are eager to discuss Graham Hancock and theories of ancient civilizations predating the Egyptians prior to the flood.

Personally, I believe we are just starting to uncover all of this, and a lot of early human history and our development of agriculture was us trying to reboot society with some of the knowledge we managed to save.

So the answer is no?

OP be like:

we can't trust anything that's not a primary source

the bible is only 200 years old

trust me

i have evidence

but it's not a primary source

Okay I insulted you, get over it. Now pay attention to my last line this time as I repeat it "We inherited our belief systems from ancient sun worshipers so there goes your brilliant theory."

It's not just because you proposed this theory, it's that you so adamantly support it, citing extremely weak evidence, having no understanding of counter ideas (whether intentionally or otherwise) and are combative with those trying to debate the topic with you

While refusing to entertain any evidence that doesn't support your conclusion

Are you kidding me? You put it right in the title

You also repeatedly said it in the comments.

In the past 24 hours I've seen denial of ancient civilizations, and very, very basic biology on this sub.

I want off of this ride.

These people discredit the rest of us and make us all look like we wear tinfoil hats, it's not good for any of us.

Removed. Rule 10.

I suggest visiting a museum.

Also it's time to take 'something doesn't add up here' out of the rotation.

I’ve noticed that “something doesn’t add up” tends to get bandied about by posters who don’t know how to add.

Haha, I laughed pretty good on that one.

heh.

just go work in a museum or junkatique, they all have basement libraries where you can handle whatever artifacts you want. Get a job there dating them yourself, there's always lots menial tasks of cross referencing letters, post stamps and there are methods for dating that involve getting familiar with the objects and their history. If you care enough you become and authority, because you care so much, but if you don't care you just don't bother knowing for yourself and so you have nothing to tell others so why would they believe you?

i've read texts from the 11th century... (the actual 11th century text) (no, i didn't personally carbon date them) i've been to the ruins in athens... seen the parthenon. i had a cigarette at the colosseum in rome....

the rewriting of history certainly favors the victors but.... if i started questioning the entire premise of human existence and its records... i might just go crazy.

thin thread as it is.

they were discourses from a sheikh in 11th century baghdad at the british museum.... yes, i took their word for it. shame on me.

Personally I believe most of what we've heard about history is true, of course some stuff is falsified but nothing on a mass scale. I'm not here to argue that though. I actually have a question for you. Let's assume that there is a massive 'history hoax', what is the motive? Why lie about ancient egypt, ancient greece or anything else you're doubtful of? What is to gain from this?

Our history happened. Ancient civilizations existed. Archeologists are still digging stuff up to prove all of this. It's far more productive to realize that the elite have kept a lot hidden from us about history rather than to believe they're lying about everything. What we're taught in school is actually just scratches the surface, there's so much more we don't yet know about because the few in power don't want us to know.

I'm waiting...

LOL...

1) Most of us have not seen/read books more than 200 years old. I don't mean copies of books, I mean the age of the physical book itself.

2) None of us have read primary sources from historical figures like Plato (because they are not extant).

Are you implying that everyone should be passing around one, original copy of everything, until we've all read it? Because that's completely unrealistic on several levels.

Ok so if we can't trust anything that's not an original primary source, how do you propose we learn anything? Since there are so many people and so few originals, it seems to present an issue, no?

You’re ignoring the question: How do you propose we learn anything?

As you said before, I’m not implying anything, I’m just asking the question.

I’m not the one suggesting history is a hoax. You are.

I’m not the one suggesting we can’t trust anything that’s not an original primary source. You are.

Easy enough to follow?

If you’ve never read the primary source, how can they be known liars? They may be liars, they may tell the truth. But according to your points, we can’t know either way.

What is your primary source?

He's asking you a simple question that you are refusing to acknowledge. If we have to have firsthand evidence to believe something, how are we supposed to believe anything is true? For example, how am I supposed to know Jessica Alba is a real person when I've never had sex with seen her IRL?

I've been binging on the show vikings lately and constantly stop to look up history to see what they based stuff on.

There are seemingly lots of "written" account from the vikings between 800AD-1000AD, here is a fairly well known one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%B6lsunga_saga

Also, Beowulf is commonly known as the first epic poem covering "the heroes journey." In grade 12 AP english, my teacher had a phd in english history and read us the whole fucking thing in old english with an accent and everything.

I haven't seen the original copy of Beowulf or anything, but apprently it come from The Nowell Codex.

Another cool thing to check out is the Rosetta Stone... that shit looks old AF lol.

And then there is this thing.

I'm definitely forgetting some cool ones though.

Well, books that are 200 years old and older are kind of scarce and hard to find.

Well, I don't think those old books not being around is really a conspiracy. Lots of items from 200 years ago are not easily found.

How would you have proposed people throughout history to have fixed that issue? My point being, of course old books are scarce, that only makes sense, it'd be more suspicious if old books were easily obtainable. Lack of evidence is not evidence at all

Go here if your ever in Manchester and want to see books older than 200 years

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rylands_Library

Or here to visit a library older than the United States as a bonus you can sut where Marx and Engles did.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chetham's_Library

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rylands_Library

^{HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 160255}

There's literally nothing that could convince you

No that would be entirely pointless as per my point, nothing anybody could say would convince you

I strongly suggest you follow your own advice. If not, you can go check out /r/iamverysmart

Did a quick eBay search for old books. This one was printed in 1684.

https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%2Fulk%2Fitm%2F352301439458

heh. boom.

You should join us at r/CulturalLayer and r/HomoGiganticus

You're "questioning" what we know about ancient history and he's kindly suggestion more reading points just in case you came to r/conspiracy to maintain an open mind.

But however malicious you'd like to take that is your perogitive, brother.

human history and civilization is so much older then we can imagine. not only was the humans larger 10k years ago but everything was like 2-3 times the size of today

It's part of OURstory.

/r/alternativehistory

What makes you doubt ancient Egypt? Are you saying that the physical structures are a hoax? I'm confused by what your "still believe in" comment is suggesting.

Look into the king tut hoax

Sure, I'm familiar with the claim. For arguments sake we'll say King Tut's life story is completely fabricated. Does that mean the other thousands of years of generally agreed upon history over 30 whatever dynasties gets discredited too?

That's like saying that the famous story of George Washington cutting down a cherry tree actually never happened (it didn't), it was made up to sell a book. So now let's throw out all of the USA's history as well. None of it is credible anymore.

Obviously that would be ridiculous. Everyone knows history is roughly pieced together and the 100% true version is impossible to tell, especially going back thousands of years. That's why I don't understand what OP is getting at. Thanks for the reply though.

I know it's not a common opinion but I've seen enough evidence to say that the majority of history is a complete fabrication. Have you checked out r/culturallayer ? There seems to be a never ending flood of new observations that are rendering our understanding of history obsolete.

I know it's not a common opinion but I've seen enough evidence to say that the majority of history is a complete fabrication. Have you checked out r/culturallayer ? There seems to be a never ending flood of new observations that are rendering our understanding of history obsolete.

Sure. New information and technology leads to new theories being presented. The same can be said for science. Science"facts" and theories are constantly being changed and rewritten. As far as I'm concerned the closest we have to actual "truth" is math. Everything else is constantly shifting and is updated accordingly.

r/culturallayer

This is related to the problem with translation of ancient documents, maybe things can be accidentally mistranslated and probably just as many translations that were purposely altererd.

I work as an archaeologist. There are many techniques used to date artifacts. For example we can use

-radiocarbon dating (more exact)

-dendrochronology( older dating strategy using tree rings)

-looking at stratigraphy ( gives you more of a ballpark time estimate)

I’m aware that people have issues with various dating methods but we can cross analyze with historic documents and texts as a way of fact checking.

With this being said, a vast majority of human history happened before written history. We are talking tens of thousands of years where most of what we know come from stone tool artifacts and the human remains themselves. The stupid caveman narrative is becoming increasingly more, well, stupid because we are starting to figure out the migrations of ancient people were a lot more complex than previously thought.

For example, I learned and probably most of you learned in grade school that people first came to North America through a land bridge across the Bering straight. Archaeology as well as genetics proved that correct, however current excavations and studies are proving that there were already people here when that happened and that those people likely came across the fucking Pacific Ocean from Asia many thousands of years before people came over on the land bridge. Let that sink in.

My point is prehistory theory is where it’s at if your looking to ask “what the fuck was going on”. We don’t need to worry so much about fraudulent old books that the elites are tricking us with.

Yes, we are seeing the progress in reporting this to the public, that the evidence made available with technology and more knowledge about the earth's geology is forcing a change in the story.

Did some of the changes in thinking begin with the dinosaur fossils?

You don’t have to believe it, but at least educate yourself even the least bit so you sound like know what you’re talking about. How can you claim radiometric dating is a hoax when you don’t even know how it works?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating?wprov=sfti1

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating?wprov=sfti1

^{HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 160341}

He probably beat a speeding ticket by claiming the cop's radar wasn't calibrated, now thinks it can work for anything :)

I’m done answering your questions after you’ve refused to answer even one of mine. Do your own homework before you come here trying to refute something without even beginning to try to understand it.

You got this one wrong dude

Elaborate...

I understand what you're saying, and I think about this a lot. We as people are so far removed from any sense of historical truth, it's useless to even think about it. We have no idea about anything, and I doubt anyone who is privy to the truths lost in time would never tell us common folk.

Should be our next Sticky/round table IMO.

It does. There was a solid post on /C_S_T about alternative timelines (it might have been xposted to /r/conspiracy as well, I'm not sure).

Check it out if you haven't seen it.

History is definitely written by the victor.

It’s hard to learn about actual history when it’s truth and lies all mixed together.

Who’s to say our history even exists? I believe we are most likely in a ancestor simulation. Think about video games, for example. Pong, developed by Atari, came out in 1972. Fast forward 46 years and virtual reality games are being commercialized at a very fast rate.

It’s a scary thought/theory, forsure. That everything we are and ever will be, our feelings, actions and thoughts are all predetermined and that none of this is even real.

I think, therefore I am. Some would say perception is reality, and I would agree to an extent.

But what is actual reality? Is it things we can see? Feel? Hear? We use our senses to perceive to world and reality around us, but what if our senses were complex algorithms and our consciousness is nothing but fabricated?

Back to ancestor simulations. I believe it is very likely that we are in on, because we will get to a point in technology where we will be able to create our own ancestor simulations.

There are three scenarios: 1)We go extinct before we can run one 2)We choose not to run ancestor simulations 3)We are living in a simulation.

I believe at the rate that technology is accelerating and how popular virtual reality is getting. scenario number 2) is very unlikely. So there’s 1) and 3). Elon Musk believes that it’s very unlikely we are in scenario 1) or 2). Philosopher, Nick Bostrom wrote Are you living in a computer simulation? and believes it is a 20% chance we are in a simulation. Nick also stated that if we are in a simulation, there is a sort of “God” or “Higher Being” but it’s some version of us.

Back to your original question, I wouldn’t say this sub never discusses it. It is a less posted topic though. I think the reason is because a majority people will subconsciously accept history as fact without ever looking into what actually happened in the past; which is fine. It is difficult to learn about actual history because everything important or factual is locked up.

History is either 1) truth mixed with lies 2) doesn’t exist and we’re in an ancestor simulation 3) is entirely different from what we’ve been told.

What are your thoughts?

The victors did not write Europe's History after the fall of Rome, that had to be left to the spreading Christians literate in latin, and writing, re-writing and inventing the History along with the beliefs.

We already have the ability to produce simulations. They aren't very good ones compared to our reality, but to their own inhabitants they are just as real as the reality you and I perceive.

Take Super Mario for example. To us, his 8 bit 2D world seems primitive, cartoony. But if Mario was self-aware, his world would look completely natural to him, and he would not even be able to imagine the world that runs the simulation he is living in.

So with that in mind, if we are living in a simulation, consider what the reality is like in which our simulation runs. It would be nothing that we can possibly fully imagine, but like Super Mario's world, there would be some similarities. Perhaps there is gravity in the container-verse, which our gravity is a primitive approximation of just as Super Mario's gravity is a primitive approximation of ours. Maybe our world's state can be 'saved' and the machine on which it runs rebooted periodically and the state restored. Or maybe sometimes the save gets corrupted and we have to be restored to the last known good save from 2 weeks ago. Would we notice if that happened? Does Mario notice when you flick the reset button?

One problem is that when and where religion controls the population, history had to be written to fit the beliefs.

Another problem is the tradition that the victor's write the history, with the notable exception of the fall or literate Rome to the illiterate northern and still barbarian tribes, a long period of illiteracy accompained by Christianity's spreading meant,

religion influenced and reworked history to fit that belief system and that continues to hold back scholarship in looking and being honest about what technology has us to learn about ancient human history. It is changing, and there was some change during the twentieth century.

Could the "Six Million Jews (TM)" be the biggest history hoax ever?

Either I'm having serious Reddit de ja vu or you have asked and argued these questions before - to no end. And just like this thread, when people asked what your point was, you never answered. It's as if you are a modern drunken Confucius.

So, I've asked this question several other ways, but I'll rephrase and ask again, since you continue to ignore the questions you've been asked:

You're basically saying that we can't believe anything that's not a primary source, correct?

And you seem to be saying that because we can't track down a primary source of something hundreds or thousands of years old, then it must be a hoax. Is that a correct understanding of what you just said above?

A simple yes/no is all I'd like to know. I hope that's easy enough for you to understand, instead of avoiding answering any questions again.

Original point confirmed.

modern drunken confucius! 8===D<3<3<3

Because the Vatican has all of our history and we are not special enough to view it.

I definitely suspect some fuckery afoot, but why specifically would they pull off this hoax?

Keeps people going to work, producing widgets in a drab and bleary existence, fantasizing about joining the club but never really getting there because they are so immersed in the fantasy that they never really accomplish something truly remarkable, all the while marking the time sitting and patiently waiting for death.

In other words: If somebody has already written the plausible backstory, there's no need for me to go out and ask questions, so I might as well just go work in the meme mines.

I find history fascinating, but honestly it's mostly entertainment. I doubt any event that has ever happened has been recorded completely factually. Think of it this way... people rarely accurately depict events that happened yesterday in their own lives without some embellishments or personal bias. Also, history is built on historical figures. This really comes down to the philosophical question of "does truth exist?". Not so sure. It's all dependent upon perspective. No matter what you believe someone somewhere believes the opposite, and has reasons to believe so, you can be sure.

I'm a law Student in the UK so I regularly do read books up to 200 years old. One I've looked at recently was from 1801. But I do believe what we're taught in schools is wrong. Especially the way we're told Columbus discovered the Americas when it's widely agreed that many civilisations have been there before (Vikings, china). There's evidence of steam power in ancient Greece and massive discrepancies about the middle ages in Europe.

Check out the liar schlieman. He made his fortune selling gold to rothschilds. Then he went and destroyed Troy, the most important historical site to european history. Turns out "ancient troy was sitting right at the top of the mound. Europe claims it's origins from Troy and then has it's origins erased by modern scholars. Things like the Oera Linda book get called forgeries when they actually reveal the secrets of the past.

Haha, I laughed pretty good on that one.

heh.