The Issue with Chronology (History: Fiction or Science?)

NASA research of earth-moon mechanics of late astrophysicist Robert Newton leads mathematicians of MSU Dr. Fomenko et al. to a breakthrough in the chronology of the world history that crowns 47 years of meticulous and extensive research. This research was actually a byproduct of Russian-American competition in Moon exploration when both USA and USSR had to develop new high-precision computer-assisted methods of calculating the Earth-Moon telluric system. These methods have, on the one hand, allowed for the precise Moon landing operations but, on the other, have proven irrefutably that the solar eclipses of Antiquity referred to in 'ancient' Chronicles were actually medieval. 'The Issue with Chronology' is the first volume in the "History: Fiction or Science?" series. This fundamental oeuvre exposes and expounds on the numerous in-veracities of the traditional version of history. The alternatives offered to classical history are stunning, unorthodox to the extent of being labeled at first sight heretical by virtually every scholar of history. The author hopes in good faith that historians will use the toolbox of his exact scientific methods of analyzing the historical data in pursuit of correcting the numerous in-veracities of the traditional version of history. In "The Issue with Chronology," we are reminded of when the contemporary chronological scale was created and by whom, with the culprits named as the XVI-XVII century clergy that was in charge of all matters historical in that age. We also learn that the consensual model of history had prominent critics ever since its creation – among them such names as Sir Isaac Newton and Jean Hardouin, chief librarian of Louis XIV, the Sun King of France, and collector of Louvre museum. The Biblical events are moved a lot closer to us historically, as well as geographically (the Biblical Jerusalem placeholder being identified with the medieval Constantinople, for instance). The New and the Old Testament swap their positions on the chronological scale, both exposed as referring to medieval events. Dr. Fomenko et al. are ready to recognize their 'mistakes' of New Chronology theory, to repent and to retract if and only if: - radiocarbon dating methods or dendrochronology pass a rigorous anonymous non-circular 'black box' tests on a statistically representative number of samples; - verifiable astronomic data refute their results on solar eclipses; - it is proven irrefutably that Robert Newton (NASA astrophysicist) was wrong to call 'ancient' Ptolemy the greatest con man in history in his book 'Crime of Claudius Ptolemy'; The radiocarbon dating labs run their very costly tests only if the sample to be dated is accompanied with an idea of age pronounced by historians on the basis of...subjective..mmm...gut feeling and the history books they have been writing for the last 400 plus years. Radiocarbon labs happily bill for their fiddling and fine-tuning with C14 hardware to get the dates 'to order' of historians.
The demand to recalculate the calibration curve with an accelerator mass spectrometer is refuted absolutely. Why that? The calibration of the C14 curve valid now used worldwide for dating, married subsequently with the weak dendrochronological method, remarried further with archaeoastronomical dating was made initially by the first radiocarbon lab of Arizona University based on samples supplied and dated by the exploration team of Arizona University in Egypt.
The archeoastronomy confirms the dates of events not from irrefutable astronomical information contained in the cuneiform tablets, but simply finds on the time axis the reverse calculated dates of celestial events close to the consensual chronology of Scaliger-Petavuis. Pseudoscientific polygamy rules. Circulus Vicious is perfect. See https://evilempire.blog/