Historical inconsistencies are not immediately apparent, but if you start to think about it, then… Any student of a metallurgical course knows that first people learned to extract high-carbon metal from swamp ore, then low-carbon metal, and only then, by analogy, non-ferrous metal ore. Only after iron could copper and bronze appear.
The production of non-ferrous metal is a complex technological process. It takes into account a lot of things: the proportions of iron, copper, tin, certain temperatures, duration of time. And so bronze could not have come into human life earlier than iron. This is so obvious that it gives rise to doubt the claim 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 reigned 1347-1338 BC the Beginning of the bronze age in Egypt 3300-2900 BC where Did the steel dagger of Tutankhamun come from?
Some historians explain such discrepancies found meteorite iron. But I wonder how it was processed by people who barely learned to make bronze?
Or take a sapphire necklace. The sapphire in hardness only second to diamond. And there is a legitimate question, what was used to drill the stones in this necklace? Conclusion: the technologies do not coincide with the period of that time.
Just like the supposedly ancient texts. Historians only rewrite a single myth, almost without referring to the original sources found by archaeologists. Why not look at the other alternative and earlier Chronicles? They drive the same one around in a circle.
Or take Pandito Hambo, the Lama who spent 75 years underground. They brought in specialist scientists when they dug it out to record the presence of life in this body. But, despite the fact that cadaver no signs, that is, the abdomen is soft and the blood thickens, and microflora it is not, cadaveric spots and rigor Mortis either, deformation of the pupil no, you have a fever, hair grow, etc., eminent scientists say that it can’t be. They see that there is, but they 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.
And such miracles discovered quite a lot, but anticodes – none. Well, show me something to the contrary that confirms your official story? After all, all historical facts are also in principle far-fetched and there is nothing in favor of the history that is presented to us.
All megastructures of Ancient Egypt are made of concrete and no stone blocks millions of slaves there did not drag and at the same time they are written in Russian “funeral”, but for some reason historians prefer to read “Pharaoh”. Why? Because P and X are read in English? But what does English have to do with it?
Or let’s say that the grave of king Arthur says “Yar-Tur Rus Tsar”, and they read “Arthurius” … why Arthurius?
Knights… and if they were these knights, clad in brigandine armor? There were no such knights. All armor is made by forging and pressing equipment made of alloy steel. This is a much later period of time. In addition, they are not suitable in size for any person (at least, those that stand in historical museums). Knights were invented by writers like Walter Scott. Such knightly armor served only as ordinary “Souvenirs”, which were placed in the fireplace halls for beauty along with tapestries. In museums, there is not a single piece of armor that has any significant scratches or dents left by blows from medieval weapons.
Historical inconsistencies exist in huge numbers. Perhaps you yourself, after thinking carefully, can give examples of obvious inconsistencies and outright falsification of official history.
P.S. the Article is based on a video clip by Vitaly V. Sundakov, a traveler, writer, and journalist