Historical inconsistencies are not immediately evident, but if you start to think about it, then … Any student of the metallurgical course knows that first people learned to extract high-carbon metal from bog ore, then low-carbon one, and only then by analogy with non-ferrous metal ore. Only after iron could copper and bronze appear. Non-ferrous metal production is a complex technological process. It takes into account a lot: the proportions of iron, copper, tin, certain temperatures, duration in time. And therefore, bronze could not have arisen in human life earlier than iron. This is so obvious that they take doubts about the assertion of historians that first there was the Bronze Age, and then the Age of Metal.
Historical inconsistencies
Take, for example, Ancient Egypt of the Bronze Age. Tutankhamun lived and ruled 1347-1338 BC. e. The beginning of the Bronze Age in Egypt 3300-2900 BC e. Where, then, did Tutankhamun's steel dagger come from?
Some historians explain such inconsistencies with the found meteorite iron. Only now I wonder how people who had barely learned how to smelt bronze treated it?
Or take a sapphire necklace. Sapphire is slightly inferior in hardness to diamond. And a legitimate question arises, how were the stones drilled in this necklace? Conclusion: technologies do not coincide with the period of that time.
Just like the supposedly ancient texts. Historians only rewrite one separate myth, practically without referring to the primary sources found by archaeologists. Why not study other alternative and earlier chronicles as well? They drive the same one in a circle.
Or take Pandito Hambo Lama, who spent 75 years underground. Scientists were brought in when they dug it out of there, so that they would record the presence of life in this body. But, despite the fact that there are no cadaveric signs, that is, the abdomen is soft and the blood has not thickened, and there is no microflora on it, there are no cadaveric spots and rigor mortis, there is no deformation of the pupil, there is temperature, hair grows, etc. venerable scholars say this cannot be. They see that there is, but they simply do not want to officially certify this fact, perceiving it as a kind of “miracle” that simply cannot happen in material life. This cannot be - because it can never be - this is the principle of conservative science.
Promotional video:
Quite a lot of such miracles have been discovered, but not a single one. Well, do you show anything to the contrary that would support your official story? After all, all historical facts are also, in principle, far-fetched and there is nothing in favor of the story that is presented to us.
All the mega-constructions of Ancient Egypt are made of concrete and millions of slaves did not carry any stone blocks, and at the same time they say “funeral” in Russian, but for some reason historians prefer to read “pharaoh”. And why? Because P and X are read in English? But what does English have to do with it?
Or let's say, “Yar-tur rus tsar” is written on the grave of King Arthur, and they read “Arturius” … why Arturius?
Knights … but were they these knights, chained in armor? There were no such knights. All carapace armor is made of alloy steel using press-forging equipment. And this is a much later period of time. In addition, they do not fit any person in size (at least, those that are in historical museums). Knights were invented by writers such as Walter Scott. Such knightly armor served only as ordinary "souvenirs", which were placed in fireplace halls for beauty, along with tapestries. There is not a single piece of armor in museums that has any significant scratches or dents left from the blows of medieval weapons.
Historical inconsistencies abound. Perhaps you yourself, after thinking hard, will be able to give examples of obvious absurdities and outright falsifications of official history.
The article was written based on the video clip of Vitaly Vladimirovich Sundakov, traveler, writer, journalist
