XBiostoic (Alain Dwight) (@biostoic)
Records go back no further than about 500 years
Carbon Dating is calibrated by dendrochronology and dendrochronology is composed of dating based on easily faked palaeography and very weak statistical correlations that are not above the level of noise.
The eclipses do not support the conventional timeline, Robert Newton showed the physics doesn't work. The Royal Society published work trying to correct this but ended up adjusting physics based on unverifiable eclipse records that didn't even match the conventional eclipse tables.
Notably they allow matches like Thucydides describing a full eclipse then matching that to annular eclipse in ~500 BC despite proper matches existing in the middle ages.
Fomenko published in Celestial Mechanics shows the physics problem disappears if eclipses are moved to medieval ages and you keep only full matches.
It's not hard and requires no grand conspiracy, everyone was measuring time differently, often in reigns of kings, the universal calendar only appeared in the renaissance constructed by Scaliger.
Book production was highly centralized. Authentication of ancient documents only required stylistic match and institutional support. Ancient finds were heavily rewarded and of course lend credibility to the ideas, people, and civilizations they confer ancientness upon.
The original timeline was constructed out of stylistic analysis of unverified documents and faulty eclipse analysis. Most modern science just throws out any data that contradicts the pre-established consensus narrative.
(full article coming soon)
https://x.com/biostoic/status/1974329091147898919
