The Battle of Hastings never happened

[Deleted member 1432]

Update: I have read the above research paper - it's not very long. It actually proves that the Norman invasion could not possibly have happened as depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry. However, this is blamed on the English artist!?! Apparently he was too stupid to realise that those clever Normans had a huge fleet of purpose built Byzantine designed ships from southern Italy and Sicily. These freighters could carry 20 horses, their riders, crew and all the necessary supplies across the English Channel, at night, in the September weather with no moonlight to guide them, to land precisely in Pevensey Bay where they disembarked as fully mounted battle-ready cavalry. Bearing in mind that there were supposedly between 2,000 and 3,000 horses, that represents a fleet of between 100 and 150 ships just for the horses alone. It's also claimed that, just as in the port of embarkation, Pevensey Bay was equipped with facilities to assist in the loading and unloading of these massive vessels that had been built by the Romans - who else!? it's as if they knew that some 1,100 years later William the Bastard would require the same props for his fantasy invasion as well.

Of course, the arguments presented as providing the solution to the dichotomy all rely upon other dubious histories that supposedly took place in southern Italy, Sicily, Byzantium and in the ancient Roman Empire. Also, sailing in ships designed for the Mediterranean is a completely different kettle of fish from sailing in the English Channel, especially at that time of year.

It seems the myth of the 1066 Norman invasion of England must be preserved at all costs.

(Maybe this should be in the Daily Fake thread?)

 

[Iulius_Severus]

It seems the myth of the 1066 Norman invasion of England must be preserved at all costs.

Adding that paper to the resource section was a great move. Slightly off-topic, but what do you think of the idea that the history of antiquity is actually less fake than the history of the middle ages? It seems like alternative chronologists tend to say that classical history is a fiction based loosely upon medieval history, but what if it's the other way around?

Once you realize that the Western world has for centuries been dominated by the monotheistic clique who, by their own admission, view anything Western (or 'Greco-Roman') as gentile heathen filth, it seems not unlikely that the middle ages - with their total backwardness that conveniently casts a certain group as poor eternal victims - is the phony history, no? It seems less likely that these people would invent a glorious history like that of classical Rome or Greece, where the people have philosophies, religions and gods of their own. To be fair, this is just conjecture on my part, but I'd like to know your thoughts on it.

 

[Deleted member 1432]

To be fair, this is just conjecture on my part, but I'd like to know your thoughts on it.

Well, if you have a spare 3 days, there's The Dark Earth Chronicles articles which pretty much sum up my conjectures on the subject.

The Dark Earth Chronicles - Part One

 

[Artemisian]

This event has its own interactive website, the royals are all claimed to descend from William the Bastard. It's the same situation with the Anglo-Saxon invasion that also never happened. What is this obsession with portraying ancient British history as a litany of conquests, invasions and defeats all about? What's really being covered up by such momentous distractions?

I suspect that the Roman conquest, Norman invasion, Battle of Hastings etc. all happened in the same timeframe and are re-tellings designed to extend history (why do we have superiors dictating our lives? "because it's always been like that"), de-sensitise us to unnatural brutality and war, and to cover up the fact that the Papists are still here. If the invaders are still in occupation, then the revolution hasn't happened yet...

 

[Deleted member 1432]

I suspect that the Roman conquest, Norman invasion, Battle of Hastings etc. all happened in the same timeframe and are re-tellings designed to extend history (why do we have superiors dictating our lives? "because it's always been like that"), de-sensitise us to unnatural brutality and war, and to cover up the fact that the Papists are still here. If the invaders are still in occupation, then the revolution hasn't happened yet...

I have some sympathies with what you claim, however, I'm a little confused about the Papists and the revolution you refer to. I notice in another thread you separate the Papists and the Jews into opposing forces. In my opinion, there is much evidence to show that they are one and the same element. What is the revolution you mention?

 

[Artemisian]

I have some sympathies with what you claim, however, I'm a little confused about the Papists and the revolution you refer to. I notice in another thread you separate the Papists and the Jews into opposing forces. In my opinion, there is much evidence to show that they are one and the same element. What is the revolution you mention?

I was referring to the one we need ;-)

 

[lancsDavid]

I was referring to the one we need ;-)

damn right.... land usury since 1066.... money usury since 1694.... these are weaponized money & land systems.... if your country has either of these you're enslaved by criminals & we have both.... unfortunately money usury / jewsury is a state killer in addition to being a financial enslavement system, so if we don't have this revolution & soon we'll be getting usury collapse instead.....