This theory is bs because we have chinese and japanese written history that lines up.. wish we had native american written history as well but those dirty white colonists didnt share the art of writing with them until the late 1400s
Native americans had their own writing systems. Mostly used pictographs, but a few of them did manage to have their own languages.
Several Indigenous cultures of the Americas had also developed their own writing systems,[7] the best known being the Maya script.[8]
But I agree with you, I dont really subscribe to this theory. Because even in my pleb family history it can be traced back almost 600 years. So I feel rather confident that the last 1000 years are likely correct.
Whos to really say though. I think its more interesting, as old as humans are, at least 200,000 years, we only seem to have the last 4000 years of history, and even then its pretty full of gaps and assumptions. So its definetly possible to add a 1000 years of "fakeness"?
On a side note, lately ive been thinking about john wynge. There were several other wing's enrolled in the queens college during his time, so obviously he was trying distinguish between himself and the other wings. Really strange. I also wonder who the heck paid for his education, that shit wasnt cheap in the 1400's, lmao still isnt. Its always been a way for the rich to gatekeep the poor.
Before john, no one has any idea where the family line come from. The family history always included us being vikings, but blood test's dont really support that.
History is def weird. And the winners write the history book.
One of our participants had a deep haplogroup testing performed. The tests results revealed our haplogroup is R-L48. This haplogroup is a subset of the WAMH (Western Atlantic Modal Haplogroup -- the most common haplogroup in Western Europe). The R1b-L48 haplogroup is quite common (which makes some comparisons difficult). The haplotypes of the family closely conform the the "Frisian" Modal group discovered several years ago. Ancient Frisia was roughly where The Netherlands are today. It is likely our early ancestors were from Frisia before emigrating to Britain. It also appears our ancestors were part of the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain (in the 5th century) rather than the later Viking invasion (in the 10th century). We have also discovered there are a couple of markers (in the 37 marker test) descendants of Rev. John Wing share, which are relatively rare. In combination, this creates a DNA "signature" which is a good indicator to locate other surnames who have ancient ties with our Wing family. One other family that shares many of the 37 markers (including the fairly rare markers) is the descendants of Henry Howland [father of Mayflower passenger John Howland and John's brothers, Arthur and Henry Howland who also came to Massachusetts].
The Wing family has a what is currently considered a family or private SNP under the L48 Haplogroup. This SNP is called M157.2 (as this same mutation has been previously found in another haplogroup). Two members of the Wing family, each descended from a different son of Rev. John Wing, have both been found to exhibit this SNP, which proves this SNP occurred with or before Rev. John Wing. In other words, this means every male Wing (who descends in a straight paternal line from Rev. John Wing) would also be expected to have this SNP. Thus far, no other family has been found to also have this SNP.
I've looked at the "phantom time hypothesis" fairly closely, and it looks like 1800 years was added. The problem is, it's not just that someone took every date and added 1800 to it. The timeline is actually a giant mess.
First, the gap of 1800 comes from the work of Sylvain Tristan. He puts it as going from (what we now call) 500 BC to 1300 AD. There are certain reasons to think this gap should more profitably be thought as running from 600 BC to 1200 AD. Now, why would that be?
The beginning date marks the start of what even the mainstream acknowledges as the "Axial Age". There's even a wiki page for it but I have casually collected several times more evidence than they tell you about on the page. The human race seems to have "woken up" at that time. (There's a much longer story as to why.)
The later date I believe to be related to the actual date of the Crucifixion, in what we now refer to as the year 1185 AD. The Nativity was, correspondingly, in the year 1152 AD. There is quite an amount of evidence for these dates collected in Chapter 1 of Anatoly Fomenko's book, "Tsar of the Slavs".
If this all sounds like lunacy, I'll add an even loonier point as a bonus:
There is a theory not far out of the mainstream that calculates that Jesus was born on September 11. Some conspiracists then believe that the 911 attacks took place on that that date as an occult ritual mocking of Him.
In that Fomenko book, Chapter 2 goes on to advance the theory that Jesus was actually based on a real historical Byzantine emperor, Andronikos I Komnenos. I've never studied his hypothesis so I don't have an opinion on it yet, but I did notice this: Andronikos died on September 11.
anyone who would trust the writers of our history is a stooge. we’re talking about the most prolific killers of all time. that’s who wrote your fucking history.
This theory is bs because we have chinese and japanese written history that lines up.. wish we had native american written history as well but those dirty white colonists didnt share the art of writing with them until the late 1400s
Native americans had their own writing systems. Mostly used pictographs, but a few of them did manage to have their own languages.
But I agree with you, I dont really subscribe to this theory. Because even in my pleb family history it can be traced back almost 600 years. So I feel rather confident that the last 1000 years are likely correct.
Whos to really say though. I think its more interesting, as old as humans are, at least 200,000 years, we only seem to have the last 4000 years of history, and even then its pretty full of gaps and assumptions. So its definetly possible to add a 1000 years of "fakeness"?
On a side note, lately ive been thinking about john wynge. There were several other wing's enrolled in the queens college during his time, so obviously he was trying distinguish between himself and the other wings. Really strange. I also wonder who the heck paid for his education, that shit wasnt cheap in the 1400's, lmao still isnt. Its always been a way for the rich to gatekeep the poor.
Before john, no one has any idea where the family line come from. The family history always included us being vikings, but blood test's dont really support that.
History is def weird. And the winners write the history book.
lol
I've looked at the "phantom time hypothesis" fairly closely, and it looks like 1800 years was added. The problem is, it's not just that someone took every date and added 1800 to it. The timeline is actually a giant mess.
First, the gap of 1800 comes from the work of Sylvain Tristan. He puts it as going from (what we now call) 500 BC to 1300 AD. There are certain reasons to think this gap should more profitably be thought as running from 600 BC to 1200 AD. Now, why would that be?
The beginning date marks the start of what even the mainstream acknowledges as the "Axial Age". There's even a wiki page for it but I have casually collected several times more evidence than they tell you about on the page. The human race seems to have "woken up" at that time. (There's a much longer story as to why.)
The later date I believe to be related to the actual date of the Crucifixion, in what we now refer to as the year 1185 AD. The Nativity was, correspondingly, in the year 1152 AD. There is quite an amount of evidence for these dates collected in Chapter 1 of Anatoly Fomenko's book, "Tsar of the Slavs".
If this all sounds like lunacy, I'll add an even loonier point as a bonus:
There is a theory not far out of the mainstream that calculates that Jesus was born on September 11. Some conspiracists then believe that the 911 attacks took place on that that date as an occult ritual mocking of Him.
In that Fomenko book, Chapter 2 goes on to advance the theory that Jesus was actually based on a real historical Byzantine emperor, Andronikos I Komnenos. I've never studied his hypothesis so I don't have an opinion on it yet, but I did notice this: Andronikos died on September 11.
Weird, right?
Pope Gregory XIII hardest hit.
anyone who would trust the writers of our history is a stooge. we’re talking about the most prolific killers of all time. that’s who wrote your fucking history.
Well that would explain a lot.
It explains absolutely nothing, though.