In 1980 he graduated from the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology. Until 1992 - physicist, researcher. In his student years, he made an attempt to theoretically solve the question of how civilization should have arisen on the planet, however, since the result was fundamentally at odds with official history, he postponed this task for a while.
In 1999, after getting acquainted with one of the works of A.T. Fomenko, he decided to return to student developments twenty years ago, which he outlined in his first published book, Applied Philosophy (2000).
In 2003, he theoretically found a fundamental solution to the question of the origin of man; in 2004 figured out the calendar history of civilization and the reproduction of the great princes.
Since 2005, on the basis of the decisions received, he has been engaged in the reconstruction of world history. The book "The Real History of Russia and Civilization" was constantly subjected to adjustments, there were more than fifty working versions. In 2006, the current version of the book was published under the title "A New Short Course in the History of Russia and Civilization". In 2009 the work was actually completed.
Books (4)
A new look at theoretical history
From myth to real history.
This book offers a new perspective on theoretical history. Unfortunately, the official point of view on history is unable to provide satisfactory answers to dozens of the most natural questions.
How were they built Egyptian pyramids? How was tin mined in the Bronze Age? What were Scandinavian sails made of in ancient times? Why is the vernal equinox not on March 21st in 1582? Why are there no Arabic numerals on the coins of Peter I? Why is there left-hand traffic in England and Japan? How did the US manage for a century without its own currency? Why does an Orthodox church service go on without musical accompaniment, although the influence of sacred music on listeners is enormous? How did the transition from the animal state of consciousness to the human one take place? And the list of such relatively simple questions goes on and on.
Applied Philosophy
The proposed work is not entertaining or easy to read. I would recommend taking it only to people for whom the thought process is not an unusual thing, preferably with physical and mathematical training. It carries not information, but whole concepts, acquaintance with which should only stimulate the beginning of the thought process.
Accordingly, an attempt to read the work diagonally, and on the basis of this to accept or reject it, is absolutely hopeless, since the intellectual density inherent in it corresponds rather short tutorial mathematics, which does not allow the repetition of previously expressed ideas, than journalism.
The real history of Russia and civilization
The book contains comprehensive data showing the anti-scientific nature of official history, as well as a new historical concept of the development of civilization with proof of the uniqueness of the historical scenario.
The work includes original theories of the origin of man and the emergence of statehood. It fundamentally solves the problem of calendars in civilization and the real dating of historical events. Based on these decisions, a brief but fairly complete history of civilization from the Neanderthal to the second half of the nineteenth century is built.
The restored history, along with the facts of deliberate distortion of official history, made it possible to identify the motives, mechanisms and main stages of its falsification.
.doc format, 666 pages, with illustrations, archive size - 3.4 Mb
The book contains comprehensive data showing the anti-scientific nature of official history, as well as a new historical concept of the development of civilization with proof of the uniqueness of the historical scenario.
The work includes original theories of the origin of man and the emergence of statehood. It fundamentally solves the problem of calendars in civilization and the real dating of historical events. Based on these decisions, a brief but fairly complete history of civilization from the Neanderthal to the second half of the nineteenth century is built.
The restored history, along with the facts of deliberate distortion of official history, made it possible to identify the motives, mechanisms and main stages of its falsification.
"The falsity of the official ancient history today there is no longer any doubt among those who were not too lazy to delve into it. It is defended either by dogmatists who do not have the necessary culture of thinking, or by those who have one or another mercantile interest in this area.
Unlike any normal science, official history does not bother to answer the "how" and "why" questions at all. It is unable to give even the slightest degree of satisfactory answer to dozens of the most natural questions.
Why is there left-hand traffic in England and Japan?
Why are Jews descended from the maternal line? And this is despite their ancient history, painted in the Bible, where already several thousand years ago there was a patriarchal way of life and there was no place for the maternal family.
Who are the Basques, when and where did they come to Spain?
Who are the Janissaries, and from whom were they recruited?
How were the Egyptian pyramids built?
Why in historical chronicles there are no data on natural disasters in the region of 1260, although studies of the snow layers of Antarctica and Greenland quite unequivocally indicate a cataclysm of a planetary scale at that time?
How in " bronze age» mined tin, the second main component of bronze besides copper? There is a lot of copper in the world, and the technology for obtaining it is simple. There is much less tin in the world, the deposits are poorer. And tin itself is always present in nature in the form of alloys with other metals, so the purification of tin from impurities is a serious technical problem.
What were Scandinavian sails made of in ancient times? Flax does not grow in Scandinavia, cotton, of course, too. They generally do not have their own resources for the emergence of navigation. And according to TI ( traditional history) Scandinavians for centuries were the best sailors in the world, terrifying with their raids all over Europe right up to Greece.
The Moscow Kremlin was built in the sixteenth century from white stone. This can only be explained by the fact that at that time there was no brick building technology in Muscovy, since the cost of building from stone mined in quarries is many times higher than from brick. It is obvious that it is impossible to classify these building technologies, since everything is in plain sight. Were there ancient brick buildings in Western Europe at that time (cathedrals in Paris, Cologne, etc.), which were attributed by TI to even earlier centuries?
How did the US manage for a century without its own currency? The first dollars were issued in the sixties of the nineteenth century, and the independence of the United States, according to TI, was achieved in the second half of the eighteenth.
Why is the vernal equinox not on March 21st in 1582? This is shown by modern astronomical calculations. At the same time, the Gregorian calendar, according to TI, was introduced in 1582 so that the spring equinox in 1582 fell exactly on March 21, as it was in 325 during the first Ecumenical Council, where this equinox was specially measured.
How was the spring equinox determined at the first Ecumenical Council? And what kind of equinox was it, if there were no hours to compare the length of day and night?
Why were all the articles on philosophy in the encyclopedia of Brockhaus and Efron ordered from the Russian philosopher Solovyov, while F. Nietzsche (according to TI) could not even sell his publications in Germany with a circulation of only 40 copies? This despite the fact that according to the TI, the German philosophical school was the leading one in the eighteenth-nineteenth centuries. How could it exist without an appropriate environment?
Why does an Orthodox church service go on without musical accompaniment, although the influence of sacred music on listeners is enormous?
Why are there no Arabic numerals on the coins of Peter I? Why were the windows of mica in the palace in Kolomenskoye, the main country residence of the Russian tsars, up to and including Peter I? And this despite the fact that Peter I, according to TI, actively introduced everything new, sent them to study abroad, and bought curiosities. Under Catherine II, the palace was demolished due to its dilapidation, but before that it was described in detail.
How did Menshikov's children become princes of the Holy Roman Empire? This fact is confirmed in an article written in the nineteenth century by the official genealogist of the Romanov family E.P. Karnovich.
How did the Crusader castles in the Middle East defend themselves in the Middle Ages, if most of them do not even have internal sources water? Tourist guides themselves sometimes tell this to too inquisitive tourists, but they are not in a hurry to raise “scientific noise” - “cut the branch on which they themselves sit”. The tourism business dictates its own rules.
Why did Paul I appoint his second son Konstantin Pavlovich as Tsarevich, although he himself introduced the law on the inheritance of power by birthright?
Who organized the coup with the assassination of Paul I? The simplest analysis shows that Alexander I has nothing to do with it. And there are no other figures interested in a coup in TI.
Why did Catherine II give up Holstein? In TI, there is a fairy tale that they simply ceded the throne to the younger branch of the same dynasty to which they belonged Peter III. It is not clear why this was done, and why after that Holstein did not remain part of Russian Empire like Poland or Finland.
Why did Catherine II liquidate the Zaporizhzhya Sich, and why after that did some of the Cossacks leave the Danube, on the territory of Turkey, thus defecting to the side of the enemy Russia?
And the list of such relatively simple and natural questions, to which official history is not able to give intelligible answers, can go on and on. In particular, many of them will be encountered later in the text of the book.
And if you approach the criticism of official history more systematically, from the standpoint of one or another science, then it completely falls apart. Let's start with the economy.
How did slavery originate in ancient times? After all, the most difficult thing is not to defeat someone in a war, but to organize the work of the conquered on new conditions for them. The labor of a slave is inefficient, and its organization still requires a well-paid staff of guards and overseers, since the work is dangerous. Therefore, slavery becomes economically justified only where performance is easy to evaluate, escape is practically impossible due to natural conditions, and as a result, the guard staff can be relatively small. In a quarry or in a galley. And to entrust a slave, who was previously free, to graze cattle or work in the field, when all his thoughts only about how to escape will not work.
It would seem that slavery in America refutes this statement. However, American slavery became economically feasible for two reasons. Firstly, the Negroes had nowhere to run, their native home is across the ocean, and throughout America “it is already written on it” that he is a slave, if without a master, then a fugitive. Secondly, even in their homeland in Africa, the slaves sold to America were not free. They were slaves from birth. Therefore, they simply did not imagine another existence. It was natural for them. For the same reason, these slaves were very cheap.
Accordingly, no one caught them and did not enslave them by force. Such work is also not economically justified, it is too dangerous and troublesome to catch free people who are able to stand up for themselves. The cost of such slaves would be very high, and the selling price would be much lower than, say, exotic African animals. So this business would not be profitable. In this case, the price of slaves in America after delivery across the ocean, given the high mortality in transit, and the serious riskiness of such a business, outlawed by many countries, remained quite acceptable. So, in Africa, this product was very cheap.
So the slaveholding of antiquity was invented already in the second half of the nineteenth century. Civilization had to arise based only on free, more efficient labor. In antiquity, for the low level of development of productive forces, this was especially true.
Or another economically inexplicable “phenomenon of antiquity” in TI. European history begins with the Balkans. From Ancient Greece the culture of the whole civilization takes place. And how did the Greek civilization arise, what were the economic grounds for this?
– There are no intersecting trade routes in the Greek zone. Conditions for Agriculture relatively modest. By the way, in the same place in the Balkans, a little to the north, the conditions for agriculture are noticeably better. There are practically no minerals in Greece. So crafts never flourished here. You can engage in fishing, but the conditions for this are no better than in neighboring territories. So there are no economic grounds for the emergence of the center of world civilization in Greece.
But how then did the Greek ancient settlements and "states" arise? These are pirate bases. Goethe in Faust openly calls the Greeks pirates. The fact that the "Greek states" arose as pirate bases on the sea routes to Constantinople was understood in the first half of the nineteenth century, and it is already difficult for modern dogmatic historians, after the official history has changed somewhat, to understand that there are no other economic grounds for the emergence of these states. Therefore, these "states" arose on the rocky islands, and not to the north, where the most favorable conditions for agriculture.
But piracy, like any other type of robbery, is not creative, it can only exist when there is someone nearby to rob. In general, it can be conditionally considered a generalized tax on the economy. At night? - And this means that there was an economic center nearby, the economy of which was so powerful that it allowed a whole group of small Greek "states" to exist on "biting off" a relatively small "part of taxes". Constantinople was such a center that arose at the intersection of trade routes connecting the Black Sea basin with the Mediterranean. And after Constantinople, pirate bases arose in the Aegean Sea.
Incidentally, Constantinople was not the first center from which civilization developed on the planet. It arose at the crossroads of trade routes linking huge, already quite developed territories capable of providing many goods for trade. Civilization originated somewhere else, and Greece has absolutely nothing to do with it.
There are three conquests in official history, when nomadic pastoralists conquered much more developed and civilized states. The Arabs conquered vast territories in Arabia and northern Africa, invaded the Iberian Peninsula. The Mongols conquered China, Central Asia, Russia. The Turks conquered Byzantium.
However, the simplest economic analysis shows that nomadic pastoralists have no economic incentives to unite into a single centralized state. Nomads live in clans. Economically, nothing connects them, since the economy is almost completely natural. Yes, and each clan does not need neighbors, they interfere by eating neighboring pastures.
Moreover, a very large genus begins to experience economic difficulties, since a large herd will quickly overeat food in one place and transitions will become more frequent, there will be less time for free range of animals. It is economically advantageous for such a large genus to be divided into parts. So centrifugal phenomena in the economy of nomads will overpower any tendencies towards unification.
Even the unification of clans that has taken place for one reason or another cannot be strong and durable. How can you win with such an organization? centralized states? So all these great achievements are inventions of theorists from history who did not understand the laws of economics.
From the point of view of economics, other fundamental absurdities can be found in official history. For example, it is easy to show that the centers of civilization cannot arise as independent centers: Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, India, China. The first emerging center will be far ahead of the surrounding uncivilized areas in terms of development speed. Therefore, it will rapidly expand to the size of a world empire. And only then, at the next stage of development (cultural, technical, political), fragmentation occurs. "Feudal fragmentation" in the Middle Ages, as a general natural phenomenon, is a myth invented in the second half of the nineteenth century. There have never been independent principalities on the territory of Russia. And the current states in Europe also arose in a completely different way than the official history paints.
Or another "amazing fact" from official history. Russia (or before that Muscovy) in the Middle Ages lags behind the European states in literature, science, painting, music, printing for centuries. But each of the listed cultural aspects does not exist on its own, cut off from others. It is part of the general cultural complex, in particular the set of technologies that existed at that time. It turns out that Russia qualitatively lags behind Europe in terms of technology, but at the same time not only trades, but also successfully fights on an equal footing. And the latter, with such a colossal backlog, is impossible in principle.
And the corresponding culture develops not by itself, but in accordance with emerging needs in market conditions. For books, paintings, sculpture, etc. in Europe there is a demand, but in Russia it is not? And if there is also demand, then first goods from those places where they are available must come to the market. And they will cost significantly more than where they are produced.
And if so, then, according to market standards, technologies (masters will come) should follow in order to produce expensive goods on the spot. So the technical lag is possible for years, at most - for one generation (~ two decades), but not for many centuries. Something in the official history in this part is not right. Civilization cannot exist contrary to the laws of economics.
So the economic analysis of the stone on stone does not leave the ancient official history. Approximately the same result is obtained when analyzing official history from the point of view of biology.
Let's start with the fact that professional historians dealing with the origin of man, as a religious dogma, believe in some postulates generally accepted in their environment and categorically do not want to take into consideration the obvious data of human physiology, which cannot be avoided.
The human pupil or device of the human nasopharynx is closest to the aquatic inhabitants of the planet like the seal. Man is actually the only primate for whom the aquatic environment is comfortable. Rudimentary membranes have been preserved between the fingers of the human hands. The hairline almost all over the body disappeared, passing into a rudimentary state. The nose is elongated and the nostrils point downwards so as not to choke when diving.
This data set almost unambiguously indicates that the biological evolution of our recent ancestor took place in close contact with the aquatic environment. And the presence in humans, the only primate, of a layer of subcutaneous fat also indicates that this stage of evolution took place not in the equatorial regions of the planet, but where, at least in winter time, it gets cold.
Official history completely ignores these data and the conclusions following from them, although it cannot intelligibly explain such features of human physiology ... "
Gerasimov Georgy Mikhailovich, born in 1957. Russian. In 1974 he graduated high school with a gold medal in Saratov. In the senior classes I participated in Olympiads in physics, mathematics, chemistry. Won in the city and in the region, winner of the All-Union Olympiads
Olympiad tasks in mathematics and physics, as a rule, require non-standard thinking, the ability to independently come up with new methods of solutions and proofs
In 1974 he entered and in 1980 graduated from the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology with honors. Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology prepares physicists for research fellows
At the institute, a passion for social sciences began. He carefully proved the inadequacy (non-strictness and inconsistency) of Marxism, both philosophy and political economy. Had problems with Chekists
As a student, he began to build his own version of historical materialism. In particular, then he took up the solution of the theoretical problem of how civilization should have arisen and developed on planet Earth. The resulting solutions were in serious conflict with the TI, so I abandoned this task, deciding that I was not taking into account something significant. At that time I could not even think that TI could be fake
Passion for philosophy led to Eastern systems. This has remained to this day. In particular, some scientific regalia, fame, fame and even money, in excess of some minimum necessary in life, do not interest me at all.
Since 1980 he has been an engineer, and since January 1984 a senior researcher at VNIIFTRI - the All-Union Scientific Research Institute of Physical, Technical and Radio Engineering Measurements. It was the head metrological center of the USSR
To illustrate, I will tell you what metrology is.. It is the science of measuring the highest precision. What is the main problem here? - The fact that it is very difficult to make a device of the highest accuracy, not so much technically as in principle
How is any measuring device, for example, a ruler? - A metal (or other) strip is taken and a scale is applied to it, which is taken from a more accurate measuring device. That, in turn, is calibrated using an even more accurate instrument. And how to make the most accurate measuring device that has nothing to calibrate?
It must be done and the accuracy justified, theoretically taking into account all possible sources of errors and correctly determining their level. Theoretical calculations and proofs are recognized as true and "materialize", skillfully performed they become a guide to practical actions not only for those who have done them, but also for a wide range of users
Participated in several interesting projects. In 1991, he had enough material for a doctoral dissertation and several Ph.D. It was irrelevant to defend, since everything collapsed (besides, the passion for Eastern philosophies affected)
In 1992 he left the institute due to the collapse of science. He created several of his own completely diverse firms. After the default, I was forced to start curtailing them. The last one closed in 2003. Since 2004 I have been working as a process engineer at a refrigeration plant
In 1999 I read one of Fomenko's books for the first time. This one book and my own developments of twenty years ago on the theory of the origin of civilization turned out to be enough to come to the final conclusion about the falsity of TI. He proposed his own approaches to this topic, published them in 2000 in the book "Applied Philosophy"
The mathematically rigorous solution in this work can be considered the “origin of statehood”. After that, three more fundamental problems were solved. In June 2003 - "on the transition from the animal to the human state." In May 2004, he built a "theory of calendars in civilization". In December 2004, it was possible to discover and formulate the "law of the reproduction of the Grand Dukes." These mathematically rigorous solutions turned out to be enough to create an already accurate historical concept.
After 2000, assistants began to appear for me. Since June 2004, there have already been two assistants. One of them A.M. Trukhin, whose role in the further writing of the book is no less than mine. Now there are four permanent assistants and about a dozen more supporters who provide assistance from time to time. In 2006, the book "A New Short Course in the History of Russia and Civilization" was published. It published preliminary results
Enough from concept to built complete history great and painstaking work historical events. The task is to select, sift, fit into the concept, correcting and refining the details. In December 2007 book "
G.M. Gerasimov about his book "The Real History of Russia and Civilization"
The falsity of the official ancient history today is no longer in doubt among those who are not too lazy to delve into it. There are dozens of the most natural questions to which she is not able to give even the slightest degree of satisfactory answer.
- Why does England and Japan drive on the left?
- Why are Jews descended from the maternal line?
- How were the Egyptian pyramids built?
- How was tin mined in the "Bronze Age", the second main component of bronze besides copper?
- What were Scandinavian sails made of in ancient times?
- How did the US manage for a century without its own currency?
- Why is the vernal equinox not on March 21st in 1582?
- Why were all the articles on philosophy in the Brockhaus and Efron encyclopedia commissioned from the Russian philosopher Solovyov, while F. Nietzsche could not even sell his publications in Germany with a circulation of only 40 copies?
- How was the vernal equinox determined at the First Ecumenical Council?
- Why does an Orthodox church service go on without musical accompaniment?
- Why are there no Arabic numerals on the coins of Peter I?
- How did Menshikov's children become princes of the Holy Roman Empire? Etc.
Official history does not bother at all, as any normal science should, with answers to questions "as" and "why". Accordingly, it is defended today either by dogmatists who do not have the necessary culture of thinking, or by those who have one or another mercantile interest in this area.
The crisis smoldered weakly for almost a century, but only in the last ten years has it escalated and come out. When can we expect its final approval?
A somewhat similar situation was in physics at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, when the study of the microworld began, and theoretical work reached the level of analysis of relativistic effects. In physics, it took several decades to bring order to the theory and philosophical understanding of the results.
And this is in a science that is qualitatively superior in terms of general culture to all other disciplines, where, unlike history, theory is comprehensively tested by experiment. So, based on analogies, taking into account the conservatism of historians and the lack of modern scientific culture among them, the crisis could drag on for centuries.
In physics, scientists are faced with effects that have no analogues even remotely in Everyday life, completely overturning the picture of the world, such as the curvature of space and time or the ability of microparticles to freely penetrate through any obstacles.
Seemingly, scientific problems in history cannot be commensurate with the problems of physics in complexity. After all, the history of society should be natural at the level of common sense and everyday experience. However, it turns out that it is much more difficult to deal with the curvature of cultural time and space than the physical one. What is the problem?
The problem is not one, their whole social complex. First of all, the very task of restoring the true events, when someone is interested in hiding them, is in most cases very difficult. If this were not so, and the past was easily restored, then there would be practically no criminal offenses. And they, as the previous experience of mankind shows, are still ineradicable.
Secondly, often decisive information for restoring events in criminal cases is provided by an analysis of the motives of all participants, and with a global distortion of the past, not only true events are erased, but also real motives.
If we add to this that history was distorted not once, but as a result of a whole series of successive changes over the course of a century, then several layers of real pictures of the past, events and motives for distorting history are lost. It becomes impossible even to approach the task of restoring the past. Basically nothing to grab onto.
Practically no sources to rely on. Event and dynastic history were rewritten. The history of religion is virtually all fictional. The history of culture changed in such a way as to confirm the dynastic, religious and event history. The history of science and technology was the last to be falsified in the second half of the nineteenth century, so that it would correspond to the rest of history.
Thirdly, the distortion of history has always been done by order of the authorities, who determined what and how to distort, financed these works, ensured the participation in this work of all possible assistants, as those who were on public service, and "independent". Therefore, falsifications were made carefully.
The bulk of the historical traces that do not fit into the official history, the falsifiers destroyed and created fakes for more than a century. As a result, today there are practically no historical materials necessary to create a true historical version.
And all the remaining historical traces, such as archaeological finds, weapons, jewelry, coins, birch bark letters, clay tablets, etc., are very informative in detail, completely uninformative on conceptual issues. They can be naturally logically laid down in a variety of historical versions.
A fragment of a relief map of the Earth, made using an unknown technology more than 100,000 years ago.
Fourth, exactly power is a customer for fundamental science, to which history belongs. And who pays, he orders the "music". The authorities decide what kind of "science-history" should be, what personnel and culture will be, what kind of moral environment, up to the question of what can be investigated and what not. As a result, the official "science-history" is arranged in such a way that, in principle, it is not capable of going against the customer, and will do everything to disrupt the restoration work real history. And in order to successfully overcome the crisis, it is necessary:
1. Create a basic historical concept.
2. To fill it with specifics based on the historical traces left, building as a result a real history of civilization.
3. Show technically how falsification was carried out at each stage.
4. Find the motive of falsification at each historical stage, which was just hiding.
5. Convince of fidelity new version professional historians, the very ones who should oppose this work.
In connection with the last point, in particular, it is necessary to recognize complete incompetence in science-history at the conceptual level of modern historians, and no one likes to admit their mistakes of this level. So this work will be hindered not only by historians who are dedicated to the essence of the problem, which, by the way, are practically gone due to the length and multi-stage falsification, but all of them "professional caste".
Therefore, the fulfillment of the fifth point is generally possible only as a result of a natural change of two generations of historians. Admitting the mistakes of predecessors is no longer so shameful. By the way, after the creation of a scientific concept, it took so much time in chemistry for the transition from the pseudoscientific alchemical stage to the scientific one.
How much time is required to complete first four theoretical points? The falsifiers were sure that they could not be implemented in principle. The falsification was done in such a way that it was impossible to break even through one of its stages. And there were at least three such stages.
First started in 1776, second- in 1814, the third- in 1856. Therefore, many attempts to build an alternative historical concept were unsuccessful due to the virtually complete absence of reliable historical materials of the conceptual level. There was basically nothing to rely on. And without this, the following points turned out to be impossible.
The author of this publication, due to a combination of circumstances, managed to fulfill all the theoretical points. Based on the geography and distribution of natural and climatic zones, an economic model of the emergence of civilization on planet Earth was built and its uniqueness was strictly proved. In particular, a set of necessary for this natural conditions and landscapes.
This made it possible to uniquely link the place of origin of man and the first civilization to the territory of Russia. As a result, a reliable basis appeared, on which one could rely when creating a basic historical concept. The development of the concept led to three conclusions proven with mathematical rigor:
- First of all, found the only possible variant of the origin of man;
- Secondly, managed to restore the ancient law of reproduction of royal dynasties and the management scheme in the Roman Empire and Byzantium;
- third, the problem of calendars was completely solved. It is shown when and what calendars, lunar or solar, were used in civilization.
This resulted in the motives and basic method of the first falsification. Further reconstruction of history led to the second stage of falsification, and then to the third. When moving from antiquity, one can see the state of civilization on the eve of falsification and motives. The task becomes much easier than when moving from the present to the past.
And in conclusion, I would like to note the following. Usually scientific theory, especially one that seriously changes the perception of the world, goes through several stages. First, the polemical stage. Then follows the stage of philosophical understanding of the results obtained.
At the third stage, when the correctness of the theory is no longer in doubt and its place has been determined, the results are presented in the mode study guide so as to make them as accessible as possible to the student. "Real History ...", despite the fact that it contains several new theories that overturn generally accepted ideas, is closest to the publications of the third stage. The previous ones were covered in previous publications of the author.
In this regard, a recommendation on how to read and perceive the proposed book, those who first encounter the problem raised. The attitude of the author to the claim that the official story is completely false, before he himself plunged into this topic, was the same as that of the vast majority today. History was perceived, like other sciences, in which there could still be unsolved problems, certain inaccuracies, but complete falsity at the level of common sense seemed completely impossible.
Foreword by A.M. Trukhin, first of all, is aimed at introducing an unprepared reader into the topic as far as it is generally possible to do so right off the bat. It should reverse the reader's attitude to official history, on which the bulk of our culture relies. Human consciousness does not allow to operate with him in this way. There must be foundations in the mind that can be trusted. The history of civilization among them. Therefore, to begin with, the reader, touching this topic for the first time, should at least get the feeling from the introduction that in the official science of history it is not the same as in other sciences. There are problems on a qualitatively different level.
It is not necessary to immediately agree with this or completely dismiss it. This should be taken into account, as well as the fact that today many thousands of people of different levels of education, more or less delved into the topic, are convinced of inadequacy of official history.
Mankind is not yet able to build such a pyramid on its own.
First part The book is devoted to methodology, and it explains in sufficient detail the social and methodological features the sciences of history that could lead to this sort of anomaly. An educated and thinking reader, even without being previously in the subject, should already perceive this part of the book quite positively. It does not yet imply the level of distortion in history, but the reader is psychologically prepared for the fact that these distortions can be very serious.
Second part The book is a theoretical solution to the problem of how civilization should have been born and developed on planet Earth. This decision is strict. However, a very small percentage of readers can feel the rigor of this solution, since the resulting solution lies in an area that is still not formalized enough. Therefore, the reader, who is not convinced of the rigor and uniqueness of the solution obtained, is again invited to simply take it into account as one of the possible options.
The third part books are key. It contains the main evidence part of the proposed concept. Based on the solution obtained in the second part, the problem of calendars and dating of events is analyzed. The proof of the uniqueness of the proposed solution is already given with mathematical rigor in a formalized domain. To understand it, a secondary education and a desire to honestly understand the topic are enough.
It is clear that even after evidence of this level, it will be psychologically very difficult for most readers to abandon the mindsets that have been formed since childhood, for a long time and in many ways. However, here everyone has to make a choice independently, what determines his personal consciousness, public suggestion, hypnosis or the power of his own intellect, which history of civilization he will choose, scientific, consistent with other sciences and logic, or anti-scientific, but comprehensively penetrated into human culture. .
AT fourth part a version of history created on the basis of a new proven concept is proposed. Some minor inaccuracies are not ruled out here, but their probability is very small. Built on the basis new concept history as a whole is much more logical and natural than traditional from the point of view of economics and human psychology.
Fifth part dedicated to human culture in the broadest sense of the word. This shows the good compatibility of our current culture with the created new history and certain contradictions with the official one. However, criticism of official history occupies an insignificant place in the proposed work. This topic is skillfully disclosed in some works of other authors, in particular, in the appendices, an abstract by A.M. Trukhin books by V. Lopatin "The Scaliger Matrix". This critical work alone kills the traditional story on the spot. The purpose of the book offered to the reader is to give a construct, which was not yet available before this publication.
The last two applications reverse the linguistic concept of civilization. They were made on the basis of a conceptual forecast, and fully confirmed the proposed version of history. Russian is the main language of civilization. All other languages are its aberrations. At the level of word roots, the whole world still speaks Russian.
G.M. Gerasimov
1. Fundamentals of scientific history
Today, among those involved in history, there is a significant disagreement. Some argue that history was globally falsified, while others, mostly professional historians, deny such a possibility in principle.
This book is devoted to substantiating the first opinion, so let's dwell on the arguments of the opposite side in a little more detail. What can the opponents of global falsification bring in support of their position, except for emotional polemical "arguments", such as accusing opponents of "persecution mania" or adherence to "conspiracy theory"? At first glance, the set of arguments seems impressive.
1. Official world history is a colossal system coordinated in time and space, between different countries and regions.
2. This whole system is well confirmed by historical sources, monuments of culture, architecture, etc.
3. Data from many applied sciences: archeology, ethnography, linguistics, etc. confirm world history.
4. Only facts confirmed by several independent sources are taken into account.
Editorial
Some of the main events of the real past of our civilization can be found and viewed on the Food of Ra website. You need to read from the very first section ...
SOCIAL CONDITIONS
History emerges in the late eighteenth - early nineteenth century, during the formation of the institution of multipolar politics in the world and serves as a source of information, firstly, in terms of the historical validity of certain claims in international disputes, and secondly, in terms of the existence of historical precedents.
Thus, in terms of the nature of the tasks, the topics, and, consequently, the methods of work, history was originally an element of the public institution of international law.
Tasks were set for it based solely on pragmatic considerations, as happens in politics to this day. There was no question of any scientific objectivity or simple human honesty. Information management is becoming one of the most important methods of struggle in politics. History falls into the zone of this struggle.
Soon politics poses another challenge. History turns out to be the pivot on which the self-consciousness of the nation is formed, one of the essential elements of the stability of the state in the international arena.
To influence the mass consciousness, it needs the authority of science, which delivers reliable knowledge. And this, if possible, is ensured by the respectful attitude of the authorities with decent funding, academic status, development and implementation of methods that claim to be scientific objectivity.
From the sphere where clever lawyers work, history passes into another area, on the authority of which all other sciences work, which are respected in an educated environment. Nevertheless, despite the appearance of scientificity and claims to be academic, history does not become a real science. Why?
Objectively, the real story is still not in demand. There is only one customer, this is power. And this customer uses history in two forms, in international relations and in the manipulation of people's consciousness.
In the first part, if we talk about quite old times, which, due to the past dates, are no longer able to really influence international relationships everything has been established for a long time. There is no pragmatic interest in the topic. In addition, the topic is complicated in that some kind of revision here may encounter opposition from all other political parties, and dangerous, because it is not clear in advance what will emerge there, more pluses or minuses. So from the point of view of the customer it would be better not to touch it.
In the second part, the real story is all the more in demand. There should not be a vacuum in terms of national self-consciousness, this is a destructive factor on a national scale. But what this vacuum is filled with, real history or myth, the authorities are already completely indifferent, as long as the official history copes with its task. And since what is there, in real history, is not yet known, then a beautiful, ideologically sustained myth is even somewhat preferable.
As a result, having emerged as a pseudoscience, history remains such in the future. All history to this day is a solid collection of myths. Historical myths are constantly being created, from the moment of this or that event to the time when it has not yet been completely forgotten, and its results can be at least somewhat relevant.
The purpose of creating a myth is to satisfy the customer as much as possible. There is only one limitation - not to be exposed. Therefore, the myth should follow logically from the previous story, the previous set of myths.
The problem is that the creator of the myth does not know what is false in the previous story and what is not. Therefore, any historian, the creator of a myth, will not only stand up for his own myth, but he will do everything not to touch the previous myths. Their exposure may "suspend" his myth, make it illogical or even unreal. Power in this is a complete assistant to him, since all this is done in her interests.
Thus, the primary history is created by the efforts of a small layer of privileged historians close to the authorities. Their efforts and merits are paid especially.
But besides this stratum of the elect, there is a more numerous stratum of ordinary historians, in their social status, as it were, workers of science. They must complete the rough, not so confidential work for the elite, work on the study of already declassified sections of history, thus providing the science of history with an appropriate scientific image in the eyes of the rest of society, and at the same time not accidentally reveal what is still in the interests of authorities would be desirable to keep secret.
The first part is implemented simply and naturally. Mass science-history is being formed as a scientific system. But to ensure the second part, this system is given special qualities, its own corporate norms and rules are created, and its own specific culture is being formed.
Its characteristic features come from a system of relations similar to that which operates in highly classified areas. An employee of one department does not know anything about the work of the neighboring one. If suddenly he has a professional need to learn something about a neighboring site, then he will be given exactly as much information as he needs, not a drop more. Accordingly, he is forced to rely entirely on the results of his neighbors' work, being unable to objectively assess their correctness. Hence the narrow specialization with the lack of the necessary outlook, increased dogmatism with a clearly overestimated opinion of specialists in any field and the corresponding corporate ethics that prohibits intruding into someone else's line of work, poor command of logic, and a significant set of taboo topics.
How is such a distortion of the scientific system realized in practice? - A set of techniques develops in a "natural" way in the process of solving practical problems.
First of all, the science of history comes under much closer scrutiny by officials than other sciences. The very state structure of science-history is controlled by officials from science, it is closely monitored by various bureaucratic political departments such as censorship, political police, officials of the state apparatus. And any official, even if he does not receive direct instructions from the authorities, as a rule, is extremely sensitive to its interests and prefers to overdo it in this field than to show "carelessness".
Secondly, affects the natural monopoly of the customer and the contractor. The customer - the government quite consciously fights for its monopoly right to control the minds of its subjects. In this regard, it is important not to conflict with similar services in other countries. So the global historical picture cannot be touched. This topic is prohibited. As a result, history remains at the level of applied science.
The monopoly of the contractor with a single system of financing, a single system career development and a unified system of personnel training leads to the emergence of many unspoken rules and norms that are no less stringent than official ones.
In general, monopoly, the lack of fair competition, leads to the decay of any social system. In the science of history, all this is additionally aggravated by its specificity. The monopoly of the performer is exacerbated by the monopoly of the customer, and especially by the fact that an excessive number of officials manage the scientific structure, transferring their bureaucratic mentality into the structure itself and crowding out the creative principle from there.
And in natural sciences periods of political upheaval, such as wars or an arms race, force personnel changes, raising real scientific personnel to the top in order to keep up with the enemy in development. It heals scientific systems. In the science of history, political upheavals, on the contrary, lead to an increase in myth-making, a decrease in political freedoms, an increase in prohibitions and, consequently, the promotion of bearers of bureaucratic rather than scientific mentality. So the decay is only getting worse.
This practice has been invariably valid for many decades in any state, regardless of the political course, social system, or any social upheavals. In such circumstances, there is no time for striving for the truth. This is especially true for Russia, where obedience to the system was not only a matter of well-being, but often of survival as well.
As a result of this practice over many generations, a systemic crisis arose in the science of history, deeply embracing its organization, including the system of training and selection of personnel. This has led to the fact that the level of culture of historians fundamentally does not meet the requirements of science and the personnel reproduced by this system from generation to generation, due to natural continuity, are unable not only to bring the science of history out of the crisis, but even simply to adequately assess current situation.
The official science-history has become helpless in scientific terms. It has no scientific culture, no intellect. Yes, and the very concept of science to this social system has to be applied purely conditionally according to tradition, so as not to introduce terminological confusion.
I.3 ON THE WAY OUT OF THE CRISIS
However, in the last decade, as a result of the development of new information technologies monopoly in science-history, despite all the opposition of professionals, was overcome. A large number of amateurs rushed to the scientific and historical area. This contingent is not professionally trained, but among them there is some, albeit still insignificant, percentage of representatives of the physical and mathematical sciences, with a full-fledged scientific culture.
Lack of professional historical knowledge in this environment, individual amateurs are replenished with the possibility of a quick exchange of information and prompt discussion based on new information technologies. So there is a natural synthesis of scientific culture with the necessary information, first of all, experimental data.
This process is gradually covering the entire civilized world, but first of all it is taking place in Russia. What is its uniqueness in this case?
First of all, in Russia during the last century, the change of power was repeatedly accompanied by a conflict between new and old politics. Thus, the current government’s desire to defend the Russian politics of the past has been weakened, the prohibitions on analyzing the past have been lifted, and there is even, although the politicians themselves do not fully realize this, an objective need for a new political and national doctrine, naturally rooted in the national past.
Secondly, the crisis in Russia, the collapse of the natural sciences led to the lack of demand for science. This social potential is forced to look for a sphere of application, at least at the amateur level.
Thirdly, and this may be the most important, definite legacy of the communist past. It was in the communist system that the study of social phenomena was given the status of a science. Due to the politicization of the direction, a significant inflection was observed here, emasculating all scientific character. However, himself approach to social phenomena as an objective process that can be investigated and scientifically explained, quite correct and, as this publication will show, can be very productive.
To scientifically explain means to build a model and mechanism of the phenomena being studied. The same is true in the social sciences. A historical model is a description of how events happened, indicating specific, empowered persons or whole social groups who performed significant historical events. The mechanism is the motives in all their interrelationships, the motives of those who performed actions essential for history.
The aggravation of the crisis in the science of history, associated with the elimination of the monopoly of professional historians, has led to the fact that today there is no longer a shortage of qualified criticism of official history. The inadequacy of the latter is obvious to everyone who is not too lazy to delve into the problems. This is denied only by those who have this or that mercantile interest in the official history, or not logical.
However, from criticizing official history to creating a true version of history, there is a whole abyss. Why?
Because the vast majority of people are able to reason only at a specific level. The standard scheme is as follows. There is some small specific topic that is not very well laid out in TI. More precisely, the way it is laid out clearly contradicts common sense and it's ok to irritate thinking person. This topic is discussed, the issue of the inadequacy of TI is sharpened, some local considerations can even be expressed about how it should be in history in reality. On this discussion of the issue naturally stops. There is nowhere to go, wall. From one fact, and even ambiguous conclusions from it, "you can't cook porridge."
To get a constructive solution, you need to be able to fit a huge amount of data into the system. The smallest percentage of amateur historians among those who today reject official history can undertake such systemic tasks. But even among these few authors who were not afraid to take on work of this level, almost none of them is capable of thinking systematically. Based on historical data, which are normally included in the TI, and those that are not in the best way, they are trying to create historical systems.
However, the system turns out to be colossal, which no system thinker is able to cover with his own eyes.
Therefore, it is necessary to create not a system, but a methodology for its creation, using which, the system would have been rebuilt by hundreds of application workers who do not have systems thinking. Nothing worthwhile can come out without a technique. Therefore, attempts by the first critics of traditional history to offer something alternative have so far ended in nothing. Everything that was in this area was significantly inferior in quality to the official version. So among professional historians, some have even gone over to the position that the official version is the best possible.
Why can't critics of official history create anything constructive, what are they doing wrong?
First, let's figure out what needs to be done. The technique is obvious, and nothing else can be invented in principle. It is necessary to propose a historical concept, and then gradually, step by step, fill it with concrete historical content, relying on sources, using an inductive, systematic method.
The second part of the work is long and laborious, but it is trivial, routine. With it, in particular, professional historians will cope quite professionally. Their applied scientific culture is sufficient for this. This is exactly what they are trained for the most part. The first part is not trivial - the creation of a correct historical concept.
All authors of new versions of history are relatively skilled or quite amateurish, but they do the same, even if they do not realize it. Each of them consciously or subconsciously creates a historical concept, and then tries to build a version of history based on it. Since they are not professionally trained, and besides, they want to solve the problem quickly, with a swoop, without a proper understanding of the complexity of the problem, then even the second part of some of them manages to perform unimportantly. In terms of creating a historical concept, there have not yet been any worthy results at all.
What is the difficulty of creating a historical concept? - The historical concept from the deepest antiquity to the present will contain many facts, not one dozen, if not hundreds. The authors of new versions of history do not see any other selection options than intuitive. Those. the historical concept is created by them intuitively. Each of the many historical sources intuitively selects a certain set and forms a concept based on it.
Even if in some cases it was possible to hit the mark on the basis of intuitive selection, in all cases this is in principle impossible due to the abundance of options. In addition, during the falsification of history, a thorough “cleansing” of documents took place, so that there are few sources left to put together the correct concept on their basis. The probability of guessing them from the entire abundance of materials is low.
In addition, intuition is informal knowledge, in most cases subconscious. And the official version of history is very thoroughly embedded in our subconscious with all human culture, making it difficult to make the right choice. So the task of creating a historical concept by intuitive methods seems fundamentally unsolvable.
I.4 NEW CONCEPT
Completely abandon intuition in creative process it is impossible, however, it is desirable to make a choice from a variety of possible intuitive options consciously, without fortune-telling. We will try to develop a technique of this kind further, creating a concept of the history of civilization.
Initially, we have two points at our disposal. One of them is modernity. Naturally, some of the modern structure of the world is unknown. However, this information is not needed for the task at hand. Enough well-known data published in the open press.
Another point is a deep antiquity, when the human ancestor was something close to modern anthropoid primates. This point is no longer so obvious, but if we discard anti-scientific versions with the divine origin of man or options for alien interference in the course of civilization, then it turns out to be the only possible one.
The task is to find the function of the development of civilization, moving from one point to another, from antiquity to the present. You can offer an unlimited number of solutions. Among them will be the version of the official history and all alternative versions. For a qualified choice, intermediate points are needed.
Supporters of the official version and new researchers extract additional points from the sources. However, they cannot provide proof of the correct choice of these points. Everyone makes his choice intuitively, and everyone's intuition is personal, resulting from his individual life experience. Need more objective methods selection.
It turns out that some data essential for the concept can be obtained theoretically. It is possible to find theoretical solutions and prove their uniqueness for two phase transitions: 1. emergence of statehood; 2. transition from the animal state to the human. The proposed solutions are basically economic. Starting from the economy, the social mechanisms that led to the considered phase transitions were analyzed.
The arguments are close to those developed in Marxism. However, Marxism was created with a conscious or subconscious intention to justify the revolutionary transformation of the world, respectively, its conclusions artificially, without due rigor in the evidence, fit into this direction. Politicization did not allow the doctrine to be scientifically objective. There were no presets here. The issue was dealt with honestly. And the conclusions turned out to be objective.
These two new points made it possible to unequivocally determine the place of origin of the first civilization and the scheme of its development to the level of a world empire. As a result of the fact that it was possible to establish the place of origin of civilization and the primary scheme of its development up to statehood, a basis appeared on which it became possible to rely on without guessing. It wasn't much yet, but it was already something compared to all the other researchers who could only guess.
It was no longer possible to move on without sources at all, but the presence solid foundation made it possible to select materials more consciously. Naturally, we had to make assumptions, but almost immediately we managed to figure out the lunar and solar calendars in civilization. We got the third strict point of the next, now technological, phase transition.
Why is she strict? “Because it has been verified by astronomy. The probability of an accidental coincidence of dates from the official history that are significant for the calendar scheme is so small that their accidental coincidence can be completely excluded.
An additional third point is a kind of revolution in theory in terms of creating a historical concept. If the first two additional points required a very good understanding of the economy, respectively, for the majority who do not understand the economy at the proper level, their rigor was doubtful, then the reliability of the third point is easily verified by anyone.
Moreover, the correctness of this conceptual point was unambiguously confirmed by the correctness of the two previous points. She, in particular, unequivocally confirmed the place of origin of the first civilization. The proof of this is the date of birth of Ivan IV from the official history. It is this date that is the key to the third point. And this, in turn, proves that Ivan IV was a world emperor. During his reign, there was the first transition from the lunar calendar to the solar one.
The three additional points received, together with the first two, were actually enough to build a historical concept. The technological (calendar) conceptual point provided the main method of falsifying history. Years of the lunar calendar in TI were passed off as solar years. The story stretched out twelve times. Knowledge of this mechanism made it possible to establish the real dates of many events, to correctly arrange them in time.
The historical concept was built according to five available points by interpolation. Interpolation is about filling gaps between points in a plausible way.
How rigorous is the proposed interpolation solution? - First of all, Economics has always been the basis in historical constructions. Secondly, the solution was sought based on the continuity of the cultural and technological, political logic of events and other data, which, as a rule, are taken into account when restoring events, for example, in criminal cases.
Sources in all these constructions played a secondary role, at the level of clues, allowing you to establish specific participants in the events or their exact time. From the logic of events, as a rule, it was possible to establish the exact place of certain events. If the same conclusion was confirmed by the sources, then the issue could be considered unambiguously closed.
Approximately the same, but still relatively smaller, role was played by linguistic considerations. Linguistics could be used as clues to one idea or another, or indirect confirmation of an already fully analyzed issue.
How to build a historical version according to the created concept has already been discussed above. This is a long, painstaking work with sources. It is difficult to add something qualitatively new in this part of the methodology. It is only necessary to understand that within the framework of a new historical concept, already known facts may look unusual, completely different.
A typical example of this is the Prut campaign of Peter I. The same military campaign with approximately the same military outcome as in traditional history, but under completely different political conditions, at a different level of technical and social development. In addition, the concept already contained calendar scales and a methodology for falsifying history based on them. As a result of this, it was possible not only to correct and clarify in detail the history of a particular event, but also to reach the ancient "Law of the reproduction of the Grand Dukes" - the sixth conceptual point.
The merit of this conceptual point is that, like "calendars", it stands up to independent scrutiny. It does not need to be confirmed by sources, except for a table of dates of births and coronations in Russia in the eighteenth century from TI.
And the presence of the sixth conceptual point made it possible to return to earlier events, the Great Troubles and the time before Ivan IV. As a result, the events of the Great Troubles were completely disassembled, all ambiguities were eliminated. This is a typical example of a systemic history building method.
What sources were used in the construction alternative version stories? - We proceed from the fact that when constructing traditional history, a huge number of applied historians fairly honestly and skillfully performed their work, inscribing its results into the traditional historical concept. It is the results of their work that are used in most cases. You can extract them from traditional history. These data are supplemented to the maximum with data rejected by TI because of the contradiction of the concept. So the constructed version of the story will take into account the available experimental material as much as possible.
Stretching the time scale twelve times forced the falsifiers to replicate historical characters. Based on this fact, as well as the "Law of the reproduction of the Grand Dukes", it was possible to analyze the personality of Alexander Menshikov. This figure turned out to be the key to the reconstruction of the entire historical period of the eighteenth century.
The second figure, commensurate in its significance for world history with Menshikov, was the personality of Voltaire. Her analysis began with simple question, for which Catherine II valued Voltaire, why, in general, the powers that be were considered with a “far from practical politics” philosopher-humanist. In TI, this question hangs unanswered in the air, but in the new version with a different historical picture, its role in world history comes through clearly.
In general, the reconstruction of world history largely coincided with the restoration of certain biographical details of five people, as a result of whose life and work the modern face of civilization arose. These are Ivan III, Boris Godunov, Ivan V, Voltaire and Potemkin. All of them are of royal origin, but did not have rights to the throne. The last four were the younger brothers of the legitimate heirs, and Ivan III was the older brother, but not entirely legitimate.
In TI next to some of them were their relatives, who overshadowed the real creators of world history. The first such shifter is a pair of Ivan IV and Simeon Bekbulatovich. In TI, Ivan the Terrible, smart, strong-willed, unusually purposeful and cruel, is subordinate to a stupid weak-willed Tatar who is afraid and obeys Ivan, even when he, as it were, puts him above himself. In fact, Ivan IV was a good-natured holy fool, incapable of state activity, and all politics was carried out by his uncle, who did not have a formal right to the kingdom, called in TI first Simeon Bekbulatovich, and then Boris Godunov.
The second changeling is a pair of Peter I and Ivan V. In Russian traditional history, there is no other figure of the reformer tsar commensurate with Peter I. With him, his brother, weak in mind and health, Ivan V, who soon dies. In fact, Peter I was of very limited abilities, and his role in Russian and world history is much more modest. And the main creator of world history was his younger brother, in traditional Russian history depicted in two images, the feeble-minded brother of Peter I and the royal batman Menshikov, who comes from grooms, but for some reason replaced Peter in the kingdom during his absence. In fact, there are much more historical duplicates from the younger brother of Peter I. He is the main prototype of Alexander Nevsky, Elder Philaret and faithful associate of Peter I, Prince Caesar Romodanovsky (Caesar of Rome and Denmark). And this is not counting the fact that he is the main prototype of almost all key historical figures. Western Europe, among which: Romulus - the founder of Rome, Julius Caesar, Charlemagne, Charles V, Frederick Barbarossa, Otto I, Pope Paul III.
The third changeling, although perhaps not so bright, is Catherine II and Potemkin. The role of Catherine in Russian and world history is almost not distorted. The first female politician in world history was indeed an outstanding personality, as far as it was generally possible for a woman in that era. The role of Potemkin, according to the TI of Catherine's favorite, an intriguer and a relatively talented reformer of the Russian army, is significantly underestimated. In reality, he ruled Russia, expanded its borders many times over, reformed the state, having done almost everything that is referred to in TI for a time from Alexei Mikhailovich to the end of the eighteenth century, and at the same time held in his hands the threads of control of the whole world. It was his unexpected death that led to the fact that Paris became a source of world unrest. There was no other figure capable of quickly replacing Potemkin.
An additional characteristic feature of all these shifters was the fact that in TI their participants are tied exclusively to the history of eternally backward Russia, whose role in world politics is therefore relatively small. So it wasn't easy to sort it all out.
In the process of reconstructing a distorted history, moving from the present to the past, the researcher repeatedly stumbles upon an insurmountable wall. At any point where history has been distorted, there is an end state, but no previous state, and no motives. Both the one and the other just hid, and at the same time the very point of a possible distortion of history was hidden. With a functional approach, when the whole story is considered as continuous function, the approach to any point of possible distortion of history is carried out both from the past and from the future, and along with this, the motives for any political actions, including the falsification of history, become visible.
After the creation of a version of history, the bulk of the logical conclusions were confirmed by many historical sources.
When you get acquainted with the proposed version of the story, there is a feeling of some simplicity of its creation. The majority of readers familiar with the work of new students of history, out of habit, perceive it in the same way as just one of the possible new lightweight, intuitive versions. This feeling is wrong. It arises precisely as a result of the fact that the version is carefully systemically verified. Many fundamental moments in the development of a historical plot had to be reached as a result of a huge number of logical iterations, rewriting a historical episode or even a series of them over and over again.
It is possible that some minor inaccuracies or even insignificant errors remained in the proposed alternative version. This is quite natural, since history is created in an interpolation way. The lack of historical materials on a particular episode forces us to make a logical, plausible version. The appearance of specific historical materials concerning him makes it possible to clarify the details omitted before, or even to correct the episode itself in some way. This is a permanent scientific process.
What distinguishes a true historical concept from a false one is that none of these revealed facts can shake it. Real historical materials cannot be in irreducible contradiction with the present version of history. The emergence of new facts is not a reason for panic or denial of the concept, but the direction of scientific development.
A characteristic example of this type was the work of S.N. Golovko and O.A. Rakshina. S.N. Golovko purely theoretically investigated the origin of man within the framework of the already proposed concept and unambiguously proved that the transition to the aquatic lifestyle of the human ancestor took place in the Sea of Azov. In particular, bipedalism, which in all theories of the origin of man, tied to TI, raises more perplexing questions, since there is no benefit from it, has become completely natural in its historical scheme.
O.A. Rakshin tried to deal with the growth of a person. The topic, in which no difficulties and tricks were expected, quite unexpectedly turned out to be very interesting, and besides, it was classified in the official history, since one is ruining it. It turned out that the species of a person quite recently was much shorter in stature. From this study, in particular, it became clear that the final stage of human evolution could also begin from a medium-sized primate that lives in Europe.
As a result, minor changes had to be made to the chapter "The Origin of the Neanderthal" in the already completed book. Qualitatively, nothing has changed in the concept. The scheme of human evolution has become more concrete. The supposed territory in which evolutionary processes took place has shrunk and become more definite. And the whole scheme was compressed in time.
The lack of specifics, this or that uncertainty, always leads to stretching the time of the process, just in case. A specific decision allows a more specific assessment of the present time. This kind of difference is especially evident when comparing the concept of TI with the historical concept that is being built here. General unskilled "reasoning" requires millions of years for the origin of man and the development of civilization. A careful concrete solution reduces this time by a thousand times.