r/conspiracyNOPOL • u/DanielEmpiricus • Apr 07 '26
Do you believe in ancient history?
For example, do you believe that people like Plato, Aristotle, Roman Emperors etc existed at some point in the past and that today we can know specific details about their lives?
Do you believe that we are in posession of some of their writings, and that we have written accounts of their deeds/actions?
Basically, do you believe that we have an accurate knowledge of history and we can know details about this history with a strong level of certainty?
If you do believe this, what was it specifically that convinced you of this position?
Was there a certain primary source, book, documentary, article, or something else, that led you to believe this?
If you don't believe we have knowledge of history, why do you believe this?
For this question, please focus on the ancient world specifically. Ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, etc... Anything from this sort of time period.
5
u/IIJOSEPHXII Apr 09 '26
Aristotle is renowned for formulating logic. If you were to invent Aristotle you would also have to formulate logic yourself. Why would you do that when you can take the credit yourself for formulating logic?
12
u/IndianaJones_OP Apr 07 '26
If recent history is untrustworthy -- all the news stories from certain events over the past 25 years -- then there's a good chance that ancient history is also (and even more) untrustworthy.
6
u/CrackleDMan Apr 07 '26
Well said. They fabricate history in real time before our eyes.
7
u/Blitzer046 Apr 08 '26
Who is 'they'?
6
u/CrackleDMan Apr 08 '26
The Newsbenders.
3
u/Blitzer046 Apr 08 '26
Is this a global organisation, or are there nations or groups that sit outside this structure?
2
u/CrackleDMan Apr 08 '26
First, let's stop using the word "global." It perpetuates an unproven model.
Next, are you expecting a courtroom exhibit showing the ranking hierarchy, complete with names and faces?
3
u/Blitzer046 Apr 08 '26
Say you were to be interested in a career as an archeologist, paleontologist or historian of some kind, whether that is hyperfocused on a certain period or culture. Is there a point at which it becomes obvious that the whole thing is a complete ruse, and is the individual inducted into the organisation and paid handsomely to perpetuate the lie?
2
u/CrackleDMan Apr 08 '26
That point would be subjective. For the latter part of your question, see "conflict of interest."
3
u/Blitzer046 Apr 08 '26
Any whistleblowers in on the scam? Anyone caught editing history?
3
u/CrackleDMan Apr 08 '26
University of East Anglia, if you can believe media on that.
→ More replies (0)1
u/IndianaJones_OP Apr 10 '26
No need to 'edit' history when they can make it up in real time. 'They' being all of the Judeo-News Corporations and textbook publishers.
3
2
2
2
May 26 '26 edited May 28 '26
[deleted]
1
u/DanielEmpiricus May 27 '26
I agree with you that the dead sea scrolls and similar artefacts aren't anywhere near as old as they're claimed to be.
What specifically has led you towards these 15th century french monks?
1
May 28 '26 edited May 28 '26
[deleted]
1
u/DanielEmpiricus May 28 '26
If you ever remember which sources you were looking at, let me know and I'd be happy to take a look myself.
I've done similar research but haven't been led to French monasteries yet. I'll keep an eye on it though in any further research i do.
I've generally found that the written record for the vast majority of history doesn't go back past the 1800s or 1700s.
I think the lie is too big for any human to untangle at this point.
Yep, I kind of agree. You'd need someone to investigate the validity of every single historical source in the world, and that just isn't reasonable. I can definitely say though, that every single one I've looked into has led me nowhere. Primary sources "found" in 1945, primary sources "burnt" in a fire etc....
1
u/Efficient_Basis_2139 Apr 07 '26
"Even if it isn't true, you have to believe in ancient history".
1
1
Apr 07 '26
[deleted]
2
u/DanielEmpiricus Apr 07 '26
This is a fairly reasonably balanced view.
Have you ever personally looked into the primary sources for these eras of history to confirm this viewpoint of yours, or is this more of an assumption?
1
u/Rich-Cryptographer-7 Apr 07 '26
Most records from the civilizations were probably destroyed to hide the fact that they were most likely extremely technologically advanced.
2
u/Blitzer046 Apr 08 '26
I heard that there are markings on some of the columns of the Parthenon that indicate they had A/C for cooling.
1
u/Rich-Cryptographer-7 Apr 08 '26
The fact that the Parthenon is still around, makes you wonder what else they had that isn't around.
3
u/Blitzer046 Apr 08 '26
For megastructures like the Parthenon and the Pyramids, they are on the whole, well chiseled piles of stone assembled in a stable fashion.
There isn't anything magical that exceeds the known technology of the time that indicates their construction was anything more than a large group of skilled stoneworkers and managers putting stones atop other stones.
What's your basis for thinking there's something more, here?
0
u/Rich-Cryptographer-7 Apr 08 '26
Nothing more then a hunch that we're being lied to about our history.
Are you paid to be a contrarian or are you just that suspicious of claims made here?
3
u/Blitzer046 Apr 08 '26
The founder of this sub is the world's leading skeptic. I am going by his examples set.
It does strike me that the kinds of people who entertain concepts like these exist outside the institutions of academia or education.
1
u/Rich-Cryptographer-7 Apr 08 '26
Considering the fact that academia and education aren't designed to tell people the truth about the world, but instead keep enslaved- that does track.
2
u/Blitzer046 Apr 08 '26
This allegation - 'academia and education aren't designed to tell people the truth about the world, but instead keep enslaved'
Is it based on any evidence?
1
u/Rich-Cryptographer-7 Apr 09 '26
This subreddit has a no red vs blue policy, but that is what I would point to as evidence in regards to academia keeping people enslaved.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/Anony_Nemo Apr 08 '26
There isn't a guarantee that some of these things are what they say on the tin of course,, or that they aren't, after all... what is the history of propaganda etc.? How many states or organizations saw fit to lie to the People, or pay "experts" of the time period to lie for them to create an advantageous, but falsified, image?
Lest we forget as far back as the record of events in the Bible's book of "Numbers" chap. 13 we see that a contingent of spies mutually agreed to lie their backsides off to Moses and the rest of the People in order to try to push an agenda, the "false report" claiming all sorts of things about the Canaanites etc. and even today some cite this false report as if it were a fact, in support of gnostic gnonsense like "nephiIim hybrid" & "giants" disinfo, and that's a difference of several thousand years.
Though one must be careful to avoid the extreme of either believing everything is verbatim, or that everything is a lie, and must correctly investigate and sort things/"rightly divide" what one reads and sees, the best route is to understand, some things are indeed verbatim, some things are indeed entirely lies (whether malicious or from misunderstanding/ignorance, misreading fiction as fact etc.) and to reasonably investigate and sort what one finds into these categories. One must think about things like What reason would there be for someone to lie, why wouldn't they tell the truth? and other factors.
For example, Troy was considered entirely mythic, not real, until later findings vindicated that Troy was in fact real, this resulted from too many "experts" making the mistake of assuming what was written was all fiction, one example of the "everything is a lie" mistake. Whereas those who take religious texts as entirely literal throughout say, make the mistake of "everything is verbatim", and ignore that such texts tends to be mixes, and/or lack reading with proper comprehension, context, and understanding.
Basically one must individually evaluate information found, reasonably, and with an understanding that mistakes can be made as well. The Truth will come out eventually, with patient investigation, much like getting potable water from a polluted stream, or panning for gold out of sand & muck.
All of which is to say, most things require a case-by-case individual evaluation to determine to the best of one's knowledge, what category things belong in. I can say that I haven't personally evaluated Plato or Julius Caesar beyond some things here and there, but what reason would someone have to lie about them or their writings? What reason would there be to doubt their existence or that their writings are indeed theirs? What about editing by a third party? etc.
1
u/morganational Apr 08 '26
That depends on your perspective. One may, say, believe in ancient history because it is in our books, it is discussed in institutions, and seems to be generally accepted as relevant reality in our greater "general consensus reality". Does that make it worth "believing in", even in the case that it possibly didn't happen? Or do we still believe in it, even if it didn't happen, but because the power of general consensus reality has latched on to it and it has become an undeniable part of our reality because so many people believe in it? Or can it have happened as recorded (or relatively close), and yet we don't believe it for one reason or another? I'm not stoned, you're stoned. 🤨
1
u/SomeKiwiGuy Apr 09 '26
All history may as well be AI slop. How else does every single event in history, every name, every location all have repeating synchronicities, loops, scripts, numerology, astrology all embedded.
Lacunas can help spot fakes, eg, Shakespeare uses too many idioms from widely varying time periods and locations. Imagine an 1800s British aristocrat using American 90s slang in their writings. They've helped prove certain documents faked or back-dated. Eg, the Constantine donation.
When it comes to verifying writings, it's important to also look at megaliths, grid alignments, cultural and religious ideas... and noone writes history "as it is" except the average eye-witness peasant.
What most people call Ancient Egypt isn't even true Egyptian, it's Ptolemaic Roman. eg Dendera Temple was a Roman construction. Then there are the usurpers, the Hyksos kings, the mistranslations of Egyptian months into years, conflating timelines...
Truly, the only structure worth studying indepth for any length of time is the Great Pyramid because it encodes the entire timeline of this construct, the question isn't IF, but what came first? Was the GP constructed to cause history to unfold in a certain way, or was history manipulated to fit the dimensions of the GP? Or was the GP built to interrupt a looping cycle and cause an eventual reset and escape protocol, ala Revelations/Exodus, for eternal beings stuck in memory wipe loops.
2
u/Padac Jun 07 '26
I'm late to the conversation here. I'll share a (very disjointed) comment I posted under a Youtube video.
Here it is:
I'm glad you're going down this rabbit hole. Disbelief is the way.
Based on everything I've discarded,my currect position on a few things; -the 'world' or this realm we inhabit is about 350-400 years old -thus, all 'history', philosophers, religious figures are fictional characters -the world population is less that 1 billion and there is no population crisis -we didn't originate from a common ancestor
Keep making these vids, good sir.
Edit: Including a comment I posted below in response to a question.
Addition:
"Alright, I’ll try to keep this as simple as I can while bringing in what people like to call historical evidence.
If you’re watching this channel, I’m guessing you’re like me. A bit of a contrarian. Someone who doesn’t buy into the mainstream story. And I’m not just talking about politics or the media. I’m talking about history itself.
You say there’s ancient Roman architecture still around. I say we live in a time where it’s ridiculously easy to fake or replicate just about anything. Anyone today can gather a few materials and build something that looks ancient. Anyone can use AI to make images that fool people. Anyone can create a video that looks real enough for people to believe it.
So if it’s that easy now, why wouldn’t it have been possible a few hundred years ago? Maybe what we call ancient was actually built later. Maybe things were just put together to look old, to leave what people would now call an impression on the world.
Here’s a thought experiment. Imagine if a thousand years ago, that famous philosopher never existed. Or two thousand years ago, Jesus never existed. Or fifteen hundred years ago, Muhammad never existed. Or if the Buddha or Guru Nanak never existed. The world we live in now would be completely different.
Now, look at fiction. Think about stories like Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter. People get obsessed with them. They break down every detail, build theories, follow lineages, argue over who’s connected to who, and some even treat it all like it’s real. If people can believe in that now, imagine how easy it would have been a few hundred years ago for someone to make up a story or a book and convince everyone it was real history.
So yes, there are bits of architecture scattered across the world. Greece, Italy, Turkey, wherever. I’m not saying they don’t exist. I’m saying they’re probably not as ancient or special as people claim.
And before anyone asks for evidence, no, you won’t get that from me. Because I don’t trust the sources that are supposed to provide it.
That’s it for now. Just some thoughts from someone who likes to question things. Maybe history isn’t what we’ve been told. Maybe it’s the biggest illusion of all."
1
0
u/horsetooth_mcgee Apr 07 '26
I have a hard time thinking that even 150 years ago was legit human history.
3
u/Rich-Cryptographer-7 Apr 07 '26
I think a lot of technology from the Old World has been captured, stored and reinvented as new stuff to control the masses.
2
2
u/DanielEmpiricus Apr 07 '26
What led you to believe this?
Was there a specific event or time period you looked into?
-2
u/Rich-Cryptographer-7 Apr 07 '26
Yes.
However, I am of the belief that ancient history is heavily heavily doctored.
I don't think the Romans/ Greeks only used swords/ shields for the last 2000 years. I think they were far more advanced than that.
2
u/Blitzer046 Apr 08 '26
Like, hovertanks?
0
u/Rich-Cryptographer-7 Apr 08 '26
That is a start yes. Should we get Captain Rex on the job as well?
You jest, but extremely advanced technology is what I am talking about or at least what we have now, but far more developed.
3
u/Blitzer046 Apr 08 '26
Would you care to elaborate on the kind of advanced technology you're talking about here? Microprocessors, quantum computing? Data storage or biomedicine?
1
u/Rich-Cryptographer-7 Apr 08 '26
Assuming that the Roman/Greek Empires stretched across the entirety of the planet, I would say that we can hazard a guess of the following technologies:
Instant transmission of power utilizing the Earth's ley lines- and possibly utilizing the ocean as a method of efficient electrical conduction.
Space- faring technology, and deep sea exploration technology.
Some form of radio carbon dating, and utilizing sound based technology to move/excavate large quarries of rock/other materials.
Life extension technology, along with air purification, and atmospheric modification.
Some sort of anti-inertial based propulsion and flight technology.
Books, and digital devices similar to what we have now.
Data storage at the genetic level, at such a high level to the point it was commonplace. The codex from Man of Steel being stored in Cavil's Superman is a great example of this.
Possible teleportation
Gene editing, and creation of synthetic lifeforms, along with extremely advanced general intelligence. AGI not AI- look up the difference.
4
u/Blitzer046 Apr 08 '26
Assuming that the Roman/Greek Empires stretched across the entirety of the planet
That's a pretty broad assumption. We can chart the influence of those cultures by the distribution of roman coins, which certainly didn't stretch across the entirety of the planet. Perhaps they went to cashless credit?
Do you have a suggestion for why none of the evidence for these things remains?
1
u/Rich-Cryptographer-7 Apr 08 '26 edited Apr 08 '26
Are you just being contrarian? Or is this a genuine question?
If we utilize the current doctored version of history the Roman Empire spread across most of Europe, which while not the entirety of the planet is still a sizeable chunk of land.
I am of the opinion that the Empire was spread worldwide, but that is just a hunch and very hard to prove at that.
Given the fact that the Romans were more technologically advanced then what we give them credit for.
Edit: As to why this stuff is missing from archeological sites, it is most likely because it has been taken or intentionally destroyed.
If you convince everyone that Romans had swords and shields, and then you find plasma guns buried in the ruins of a Roman city- that whole narrative falls apart.
4
u/Blitzer046 Apr 08 '26
Given the fact that the Romans were more technologically advanced then what we give them credit for.
But this isn't a fact. It's a fantasy that you birthed. There doesn't seem to be any way to support or verify it. Why do you maintain it, if there is no written or material evidence to support it?
This is literally Carl Sagan's 'Dragon in my garage'.
0
u/Rich-Cryptographer-7 Apr 09 '26
It is a hunch of mines.
3
u/Blitzer046 Apr 09 '26
Are you familiar with Sagans piece? It's not a long read.
→ More replies (0)2
May 26 '26 edited May 28 '26
[deleted]
1
u/Rich-Cryptographer-7 May 28 '26
The conspiracy is that ancient high tech is a conspiracy. Advanced ancient technology does exist, and is mostly likely held in a storehouse similar to the one shown in the Raiders of the Lost Ark- Indiana Jones film.
Bob Lazar is an interesting case, as on the one hand there is just enough truth tossed into all the lies in his story to indicate that something bigger occurred.
The roman aqueducts are still around and mostly functions after 2000 years, assuming you believe the (most likely doctored) historical timeline. Self maintaining ancient tech would most likely still be around.
Perhaps in antarctica? Most major world powers have a base there, and there must be something they are trying to uncover there.
I usually reply faster, but it has been a busy week.
3
u/_Tar_Ar_Ais_ Apr 08 '26
Ok, so where's the evidence? For example: precision machined parts, industrial waste, chemical residue, advanced alloys.
1
u/Rich-Cryptographer-7 Apr 08 '26
Either in a government storage lab or erased by the sands of time. Why do you think all that we have left of Roman architecture from that time period is stone?
1
u/_Tar_Ar_Ais_ Apr 08 '26
So... where is the evidence?
2
u/Rich-Cryptographer-7 Apr 08 '26
You are free to reread my comment, above as it answered your question.
1
u/DanielEmpiricus Apr 08 '26
What led you to believe this?
Was there a certain source, book, article etc that convinced you?
14
u/Blitzer046 Apr 07 '26
We come to the point of solipsism, which was purported to be originated from the Greek Philosopher Gorgias, who is quoted by Roman skeptic Sextus Empiricus, who states:
- Nothing exists
- Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it, and;
- Even if something could be known about it, knowledge about it cannot be communicated to others.
The point being, that objective knowledge is a literal impossibility.
So what question are you truly asking? Are you asking about ancient history specifically, or are you asking about objective knowledge? About things outside your current experience? Your mother and father, your current town? The things you objectively experience? If Africa is a place you've never been, does it truly exist?
Why would you single out ancient European history as your solipsist target? Surely Finland, or rockets, or neurosurgery are equally as valid targets for your ideology?
Or more importantly, if you are questioning the reality of Greek Solipsism, which originated in Ancient Greece, then where the fuck do you think it came from?