Yes we've already featured a few of these cool bentos, but they're so great that it never hurts to revisit them, and the ones we haven't shared are certainly worth a long look.
Link
Yes we've already featured a few of these cool bentos, but they're so great that it never hurts to revisit them, and the ones we haven't shared are certainly worth a long look.
Link
Comments (0)
UGH! Once again, Uncle John's Reader needs a fact checker. East Africa was the one place where the Germans had some lasting success during the Great War. Right in German East Africa (the former Tanganika the article centers on) General Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck's fight against the British outlasted the war everywhere else by 3 days (it took that long to get word to them that the Armistice of 11/11/1918 had been signed. Upon the return to Germany, von Lettow-Vorbeck's force was the only one allowed a victory parade through the Brandenberg Gate. He was a was hero through the rest of his life (which was along one) and remained well-respected after WWII (helped by his disdain for the Nazis).
Uncle John's Reader has decent writing and interesting stories, but *very* often I easily spot major errors in topics wherein I have only some passing knowledge. One must assume the stories I am less familiar with are riddled with error as well.
HIRE A FACT CHECKER, GUYS!
It's humorous that your name is Fran as that is a reference to the Franks, of whom Charlemagne (or Charles the Great or Karl der Große) was king. Almost everyone in my family has Charles/Karl or Frank as a first or middle name -- so I like to tell people we are descended from him. I've no evidence to support that, but it's not incredibly unlikely if you do a geometric progression backwards -- when you go back THAT far, nearly everyone with European ancestors has a lot of common ones.
There is so much information that to say it is fake is ridiculous! not to mention, the other scientific evidence of those 300 years. Geology, carbon dating, etc... So did the pope know about all this too and somehow falsified it?
And what about the historical records outside of Europe?! If you compare historical records in China this theory doesn't make any sense!
Now don't think I am siding with Illig, but...
Geology and carbon dating could not, by themselves, provide evidence for any three hundred year period in modern history.
1. Geology involves the study of the formation of rocks and dirt. So unless you can tie an specific historical event from that period that is reported to have happened at a certain date to geological phenomena that are also reported to have happened at a certain date, such as volcanic activity in Europe, geology is of no value in referencing modern dates.
2. What would you carbon date? Most carbon dated items come back with results in ranges of thousands of years, not hundreds anyway. You could not carbon date George Washington's false teeth and achieve a date of 1700-1800 for instance. You could however, compare what Historians have told us with the story of the descent of the teeth to modern history and be markedly certain that the date is accurate.
3. Why would you expect that the Chinese would have record of events in medieval Europe? I think your confusing what he is saying. I believe his theory posits that the EVENTS in Europe that we believe happened at certain times did not, and therefore OTHER events were happening at that time. He's not saying that all of history in that time period is nonexistent.
Perhaps you meant to write "archeology" rather than "geology". Or maybe "geneology". Either of which would provide more genuine insight into it.
This leaves us with a conclusion: Our knowledge of history is highly dependent upon those who were there, or shortly after to know that it happened, and record their knowledge and experience for future generations. Archeology for instance can tell us a great deal about how people lived in certain KNOWN time periods. Most of what we learn from archeology is attained from comparing finds to what is KNOWN and RECORDED.
If a collective of historians chose to deliberately deceive people with a lie masquerading as a complicated history, it might be highly difficult to uncover the truth.
Finally,
Probably the guy IS a nut job, but he is not the only one to posit this theory. So, if proving the middle ages existed is important to you, rather than tout what we know and recite to each other "don't question authority", see if the guy has some valid reasons for his arguments. Then historians should review his claims and examine the existing EVIDENCE, compare it with historical documents and then DETERMINE the truth. Most would rather disregard contrary evidence to embrace the ease of accepting conventional wisdom.