MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Inventing History : forgery: a great British tradition (British History)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 173, 174, 175 ... 178, 179, 180  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Long before.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Well, sort of

Mick Harper wrote:
Would they give the prize to a book that demonstrated reasonably conclusively that Samuel Pepys never wrote a diary and shouldn't have a prize named after him?

Oh my Lord! I've come to suspect the very same! Reason being that I don't believe the period of British history actually happened (I know -- that's totally crazy but I can't help where the data leads). On what basis did you reach this conclusion???
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

You have entered a hall of mirrors. If you assume a period of history didn't exist then you are committed to the proposition that all evidence from that period is either fake or kosher-but-misinterpreted. If you then buttress your argument by saying a piece of evidence is fake because that period of history didn't exist you are in ... a hall of mirrors.

But, curiously, this may be no bad thing. So long as you use the hypothesis as a tool of investigation and not as a conclusion in itself then you can find yourself on fertile ground. For instance, Hatty and I came to suspect that Anglo-Saxon Christianity did not exist which allowed us to inspect all evidence that it did -- in the form of Anglo-Saxon churches -- to be spurious. We then proved, at least to our satisfaction, that this was indeed the case. Time after time after time. It is now a conclusion rather than a hypothesis.

On what basis did you reach this conclusion???

When it comes to the Pepys Diary this was, as far as I can remember, sheer serendipity. We then put together the evidence which is detailed in RevHist. It does not depend on Pepys -- or for that matter seventeenth century English history -- not existing. Indeed it depends on everything being kosher except the Pepys Diary.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
Well, sort of


Don't worry. You reached this conclusion on a stronger basis. I wouldn't dare challenge your precedence.

I merely inferred it from my deconstruction of that period of history. I was excited that your research was confirming my suspicions.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
Pitt the Elder became prime minister de facto in 1756 and de jure in 1766.


I erred with respect to Pitt the Elder. My memory led me astray.

Nevertheless, I believe you are missing the larger case and, therefore, missing out. Moreover; I think you are violating the spirit of the site by dismissing my claims out of hand (though I see your more recent update is a little more open-minded on the matter).
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
This is completely new to me and I thought I was pretty clued up on British history. But I'll take your word for it. All the Hanoverians rowed father-to-son so, yes, you have a pattern there.


That's just it. They didn't. This is a one-off pattern native only to the 18th century. And it happens twice.

Incidentally, Pitt the Younger carried out a political purge highlighted by trials for treason and sedition.
The British government certainly cracked down on pro-French radicals.


All of these stories are rational. Were they not, historians would have seen the patterns as well. Historians aren't fools after all.

But when a novice, with a skeptical bent toward history in general, reads a multi-book survey of British History from start to finish, the big picture is what looms large. And the patterns become impossible to ignore.

I wasn't looking for them. I expected all of them to end in the post-Tudor era. But they just kept occurring, right up into the Napoleonic Age. There, I stopped reading. But I've subsequently found more pattern in smatterings of history I've encountered of the war period and post-war period.

It's truly mind-blowing how much history is potentially artificial.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
You have entered a hall of mirrors. If you assume a period of history didn't exist then you are committed to the proposition that all evidence from that period is either fake or kosher-but-misinterpreted. If you then buttress your argument by saying a piece of evidence is fake because that period of history didn't exist you are in ... a hall of mirrors.


All I am doing is pointing out the patterns. For a rational person, at a certain point, the patterns reach a limit of cognitive tolerance and one is forced to conclude that one is being lied to.

It got to the point, for me, where I often had to stop reading. I was so outraged at the brazenness of those doing the lying.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

It has long been my ambition to go back to the books and begin breaking down the patterns for everyone here in our group. I've just not been able to divert my attention to that project with all my free time going to the writing of the Deserts book.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
Indeed it depends on everything being kosher except the Pepys Diary.


Well everything ain't kosher.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I think you are violating the spirit of the site by dismissing my claims out of hand (though I see your more recent update is a little more open-minded on the matter).

Your claims are of such long-standing and are sufficiently generalised that the question does not arise.

Mick Harper wrote: All the Hanoverians rowed father-to-son so, yes, you have a pattern there.
That's just it. They didn't. This is a one-off pattern native only to the 18th century. And it happens twice.

Twice is not a pattern. The eighteenth century is the only time that England/Britain was a parliamentary monarchy i.e. Whigs and Tories (or factions thereof) had to have the support of the monarch or the monarch-to-be but the monarch didn't have the power just to arrest (and if necessary kill) the one-to-be. You can see the same pattern in -- offhand -- France, Russia and Germany.

All of these stories are rational. Were they not, historians would have seen the patterns as well. Historians aren't fools after all.

Yes, they are. And 'true' is a subset of 'rational'.

But when a novice, with a skeptical bent toward history in general, reads a multi-book survey of British History from start to finish, the big picture is what looms large. And the patterns become impossible to ignore.

If that person brings things to the table he may end up eating them.

I wasn't looking for them. I expected all of them to end in the post-Tudor era. But they just kept occurring, right up into the Napoleonic Age. There, I stopped reading. But I've subsequently found more pattern in smatterings of history I've encountered of the war period and post-war period. It's truly mind-blowing how much history is potentially artificial.

In that case I recommend either radical brain surgery or listening to your Uncle Mick. Though you would have to be mad etc etc.

All I am doing is pointing out the patterns. For a rational person, at a certain point, the patterns reach a limit of cognitive tolerance and one is forced to conclude that one is being lied to.

Cognitive dissonance has no limits.

It got to the point, for me, where I often had to stop reading. I was so outraged at the brazenness of those doing the lying.

Hatty often reports the same effect when watching BBC4 though she does not accuse them of brazenly lying. Only of being congenitally stupid.

Mick Harper wrote: Indeed it depends on everything being kosher except the Pepys Diary.
Well everything ain't kosher.

I select between them. I suggest you download the Kindle version of RevHist https://www.amazon.co.uk/Revisionist-Historiography-M-J-Harper-ebook/dp/B0BVG4NBX5 and read the appropriate chapters.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
That's just it. They didn't. This is a one-off pattern native only to the 18th century. And it happens twice.

Twice is not a pattern.


Twice is a pattern when a double-told tale is itself a pattern repeated throughout "British History."
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I think perhaps I have been unclear as to what it is that I am arguing. I am arguing that these patterns exist. That's really it. What the patterns mean then is a secondary exercise in reason.

Does this particular pattern mean this specific period of history conclusively did not occur? No.

Does this particular pattern mean there is reason to suspect this specific period of history either did not occur or has been monkeyed with extensively? Certainly.

Do I personally conclude that this particular pattern means this specific period of history is most-likely largely fake, given the track record of the narrative for the previous 500 years? Yes.

I select between them. I suggest you download the Kindle version of RevHist https://www.amazon.co.uk/Revisionist-Historiography-M-J-Harper-ebook/dp/B0BVG4NBX5 and read the appropriate chapters.


I'm reading the whole thing once I've completed the latest volume of Fomenko. I mean to report my thoughts on that volume here as soon as it is completed.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

He was second to Fomenko
Just trying out epitaphs.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Viking Timbers at St Olaf's Church, Wasdale Head https://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=44241



St. Olaf's Church in the tiny hamlet of Wasdale Head claims to be one of the smallest in England with four roof trusses said to have come from Viking long ships, which seems rather unlikely. The churchyard is tiny and very poignant. Reading the grave markers, many of those buried here lost their lives on the surrounding fells, particularly Scawfell (old spelling).

According to the Carlisle Diocese website, the church was originally built in 1550 but had no dedication until 1977. It originally had an earth floor and few seats, although the more recent pews look as if the church will hold around 50 people. The roof trusses certainly look very old, although the roof has obviously been refurbished at some point in the fairly recent past
.

"Bert, we got any roof trusses?"
"There's those Viking ones."
"Eight hundred year-old wood trusses... what do you reckon?"
"There'll only be fifty people under them max and they'll probably die on Scawfell anyway."
"Could be a kindness."
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I have been doing some re-research and came across the following.

Saint Dunstan,[a] OSB (c. 909 – 19 May 988)[2] was an English bishop. He was successively Abbot of Glastonbury Abbey, Bishop of Worcester, Bishop of London and Archbishop of Canterbury, later canonised.[3] His work restored monastic life in England and reformed the English Church. His 11th-century biographer Osbern, himself an artist and scribe, states that Dunstan was skilled in "making a picture and forming letters", as were other clergy of his age who reached senior rank.[4] Dunstan served as an important minister of state to several English kings. He was the most popular saint in England for nearly two centuries, having gained fame for the many stories of his greatness, not least among which were those concerning his famed cunning in defeating the Devil.[5]


So Dunstan was a cunning fellow and if Osbern was correct.

Dunstan was skilled in "making a picture and forming letters", as were other clergy of his age who reached senior rank.


But who was Osbern? I hadn't checked him out before.

He was born at Canterbury and brought up by Godric, who was dean from 1058–1080. He became a monk, and later precentor of Christ Church, and was ordained by Archbishop Lanfranc of Canterbury (d. 1089). He died probably between 1088 and 1093.

He was acquaintances, and probably close friends, with Eadmer of Canterbury, a fellow monk and historian of Canterbury a few years his junior. Eadmer related a story in which the two, in the late 1080s, searched for the relics of Saint Audoen in the crypts of Christ Church, Canterbury. Upon finding the relics, they were delighted, but the same night, were haunted by 'dreadful apparitions'. Eadmer was greatly influenced by the writing style and memories of Osbern, who could better recall late Anglo-Saxon England, and he would later rewrite and improve Osbern's hagiography of Saint Dunstan. [1]

He was very skillful in music and is said to have written two treatises: De re musica and De vocum consonantiis. [2]

But he is known best as translator of saints' lives from the Anglo-Saxon and as an original writer. William of Malmesbury praises the elegance of his style, but criticises his frequent historical inaccuracies.[3][4]


So Osbern could recall late Anglo Saxon England if somewhat inexactly, and with his pal Eadmer was ace at finding relics.....

I wanted a bit more.

He is sometimes confused with Osbert de Clare, alias Osbern de Westminster.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 173, 174, 175 ... 178, 179, 180  Next

Jump to:  
Page 174 of 180

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group