I took the challenge. And spent quite a long time in disbelief until I could not disbelieve anymore.

This is what New Chronology is all about. It’s there for us to look into. It even (many times) encourages the reader to work by themselves and find other alternatives.

N.C. is NOT an absolute that it set in concrete. It flows with the time and evidence uncovered.

I have been a follower of AMP for several years now. His perspective is slanted towards Catalonia and the Catalan people…much as mine is towards the British Isles.

He gives a quick, concise summary of N.C. here :

The evidence and denial of the “New Chronology”

Andreu Marfull

The evidence and denial of the “New Chronology”

The story is structured around a chronology proposed in the seventeenth century, basically by the religious Joseph Justus Scaliger (1540-1609) and Dionysius Petavius ​​(1583-1652). It is especially from then on that history begins to be written in its entirety. In other words, most of the historiographical production has been built, for the most part, in the last four centuries.

Since then, almost all of the accumulated knowledge of history is based on a historical construct that is highly robust, in the face of the collective consciousness and the created interests that have been built on it, where the highest authority is the support. of the respective cultural institutions structured in each of the states where the respective official histories have been written. For this reason, questioning its validity is always a psychological challenge, and the approach to a new chronology is necessarily a process that requires time for analysis and reflection.

From the 16th century to the present day, different authors have questioned the official chronology, such as the mathematician, physicist, philosopher and theologian Isaac Newton (1642-1727), but for various reasons it has not been altered. Today, in the 21st century, several authors question its accuracy, but in general these are specific corrections. Of all of them, the “New Chronology” (hereinafter NC), directed by mathematicians Anatoly T. Fomenko and his collaborators, proposes a broader revision. Based on research work begun in the 1970s, he proposes to use the knowledge of modern astronomy and statistical mathematics to explore the chronological structure that governs global history up to the seventeenth century.

The NC presents an alternative chronology of history with a comprehensive reconstruction of the facts that are structured in it, which, in order to deepen its study and invite the international scientific community to join the project, is presented as a hypothesis theorized and verified experimentally with scientific methods.

Its results are especially questioned by the historiographical establishment, insofar as it concludes that the central axis of the official chronology is the result of a manipulation and of numerous accumulated errors, but its critic avoids the evidence of the data obtained. This research work shows that common dating systems have been structured around an erroneous chronology and that therefore the actual history is different from the official one.

For this reason, the NC has a clear vocation to open a debate that, by its nature, conflicts with the established historiographical authorities. Because of this, their results are the main object of resistance from the official community, which refuses to accept the logic of another story. Where Jesus is a myth built on the glory of a Roman emperor mercilessly condemned in the twelfth century; where the genealogies of the great medieval monarchies and emperors are an artificial recreation to legitimize their authority between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries; and where the ancient history of ancient Egypt, Persia, Phenicia, Greece and Rome is a medieval reflection moved to time immemorial for the building of an accumulated power that came into conflict throughout the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries.

The way the official chronology has come to us would be a consequence of the difficulty in establishing the ideal of the Messiah under the figure of Christ, where the Krishna and the Buddha would be part of the same reflection, as well as the complex reality that leads the Ottomans to occupy Constantinople in 1453, to the Europeans to propose the colonization of the World and to China to complete its great wall in century XVI. Otherwise, its reading provides solid and coherent reasons for the raison d’être of the intense persecution of the Holy Inquisition in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; of the international company of the Society of Jesus in the 16th-18th centuries; of the monarchical absolutism of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; Napoleon’s interest in Egypt and the establishment of a new world empire after the success of the French Revolution;

To understand its raison d’être is only possible if it is first properly understood that the historical construct is based on a deception measured at a time in history when, for various reasons, it was considered appropriate to create new idols.

For this and other reasons, duly argued and demonstrable, the NC is not a common door to delve into the past, but it is interesting enough not to keep it closed. It provides great answers, and at the same time raises great questions, which are reached as a chain of logics that accumulate one after the other, like a piece of dominoes falling and dropping another that is just right. behind, and so on.

Disseminating it and collaborating with its study is an act of personal coherence, assumed from the moment the NC evidence is greater than the resistance (denial) that official history fosters.

Andreu Marfull, 2016