Yes.
https://www.unz.com/article/how-long-was-the-first-millenium/
Found this article especially and the previous two (linked within) very interesting.
Basically says that there is a quiet debate going on between historians and some archealogists.
The argument is over whether the period from 300-9009 AD really existed or was it triple-counted by using different historians describing the same events with different names by the Jesuit historians in the 16th Century when they were compiling a comparitive history of the world.
We may actually be living in the 1400's, based on theis archealogical argument and the excavated evidence from around the world.
was answered at the time, would be in archives.
maybe someone else from then remembers oof-hand.
yeah that's the argument from the article, but it only covers the first millenium, not talking about other milleniums which may well have the same archaelogical and temporal problem of conflating and double or triple-counting the same history..
that's the archaelogical and historical argument from the article.
whatever.
read it for yourself, if you can, it will revolutionize history if it is true, and it looks that way.
Read the third part.
It's good to be skeptical/play the Devil's Advocate.
I had noticed the repetition in history from that time period (300-900AD) myself, and it looks like many others have also.
the third part of the article series, ie the linked article >>11023067
Was there any conclusion to the implied Merkel-Hitler conection?
>11023369
it depends on whether the content is valuable or not, ie does it add to the public discourse positively?
>>11023388 maybe, but I'm not so sure.
maybe there's something to number 4
there is to 911
there is to the holohoax
there is to Israel
why not to much of history
there are many false flags
sunshine is a great disinfectant
History in the UK, and arguably for the world depending on how powerful the monarchy (ies) is/are.
No, what I'm saying is, is that I saw an arcticle that I thought was interesting if true, and based on the arcticle and other things I know, I am saying that on the balance of probabilities that this article is correct in its' hypothesis.
This is a free speech board, and |I intend to try get it to have the best answers to questions, because most of us are here for the truth, no matter how bad it is.
>>11023514 ty
>>11023518 ha ha, hmm
gotta go for a while.
No, what I'm saying is, is that I saw an arcticle that I thought was interesting if true, and based on the arcticle and other things I know, I am saying that on the balance of probabilities that this article is correct in its' hypothesis.
This is a free speech board, and |I intend to try get it to have the best answers to questions, because most of us are here for the truth, no matter how bad it is.
>>11023514 ty
>>11023518 ha ha, hmm
gotta go for a while.
Both.
But Laugh and then the whole world will laugh with you.
Then you can change things.
nice sentiments
nice sentiments
>>11023584NOTABLE
>>11023585NOTABLEto most new-to-be-informed (n2bi) eyes to this board and thus
NOTABLE
nice sentiments
>>11023584NOTABLE
>>11023585NOTABLEto most new-to-be-informed (n2bi) eyes to this board and thusNOTABLE
>>11023606 as above
thx you UK anon for the kind words. I am pleased.
You are a scholar and a gentleman(woman).
9.39
Amsterdam
Apologies, mien du.
I should be, but I don't care anymore.
Take care too, my friend.
>>11023687 could be o7