Phantom Time Theory?

[beermugcarl]

has anybody heard of this before? from what I can gather - its the theory that 300 hundred years of European history never happened and some figures (such as Charlemagne) did in fact never exist. the theory states that Otto III sat down with his scholars and decided to invent a heap of history?

so I'm posting this because I want to know if anybody knows anything about this and stainless felt like a good place to put it so there ya go... anybody got a good reference's?

here lies the wiki entry : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_time_hypothesis

[DC53]

I've heard of it, though I don't really believe it. I don't think it would matter too much if that was what actually happened though.

[Vissewalde rex de Gerzika]

Interesting read! Never knew about such a theory, have some rep from me for that!

[Strengelicher]

Reading Thief of Time by Terry Pratchett may be enlightening in this regard.

[PerXX]

First of all, let's not call it a theory.
A theory needs at least some of the evidence to support the claim, something this doesn't have.
It is a hypothesis - It is nothing more than someone going "What if X was true? I'll look into that".

All this is, is someone going "I don't have any specific evidence of this, so that must mean I can substitute my own reality". Not unlike people believing in various deities.
In both cases though, this is simply because of a lack of research, because there's plenty of evidence that this time period existed. It is simply the author looking for fame, and I must admit to be thinking less of anyone posting or supporting such a thing.

[yuezhi]

A theory needs at least some of the evidence to support the claim, something this doesn't have..

why are these called conspiracy theories anyways?

[beermugcarl]

I never did say I believed it
Its just that I heard about it and said to myself 'now that's something mightily curious...'
and its true that Otto was an egotist who did fabricate allot of history... but I do personally think that he didn't fabricate the whole thing but I don't find it unreasonable to believe that he may have exaggerated certain things because... he was Otto

essentially : yeah it's rubbish but it's interesting rubbish that isn't entirely unfounded!

[Ichon]

It is BS. Completely ignores evidence outside Europe as well as posits some things based on very erroneous ideas. There are some unresolved details of Charlemagne's life but so is every single era of history has unresolved details. The biggest flaw is the evidence from outside Europe. There are parts of the theory that raise questions about archeological timelines but questions don't make a jump to such a crazy conclusion relevant.

[Duck of Death]

All I need is a Delorean and a flux capacitor and Ill get to the bottom of this.

[Sanderlicious]

No.

This goes in the drawer with "9/11 was an inside job," "the moon landing was a hoax," and "the holocaust never happened."

[k/t]

No.

This goes in the drawer with "9/11 was an inside job," "the moon landing was a hoax," and "the holocaust never happened."

In other words, highly credible.

[jado818]

In other words, highly credible.

[Chazz1225]

if this was true, then the storyline in Assassin's Creed has to be real, there's no other explanation xD

[Duck of Death]

The truth is that all we ever believe is what our secret reptilian overlords want us to believe.

My brother's sister's cousin meet one once... true story!

[DeliCiousTZM]

This goes in the drawer with "9/11 was an inside job

It is common knowledge for people well read in the subject that 9/11 had some sort of shadow state support. Whatever we know about 9/11 for sure however is that its not what the 9/11 commite told us. The time we are in now are no different than it was a hundred years ago when it comes to the strife for power and the accumulation of wealth, to believe anything else is to be justly considered naive.

as for the Phantom theory it is not supported by archeology digs. People lie,historians lie, but dirt dont lie.

[Sanderlicious]

It is common knowledge for people well read in the subject that 9/11 had some sort of shadow state support.

Look, lets not make this an argument over 9/11 as this is obviously the wrong place to do so and no matter what I could say, you would walk away still believing in some absurd notion that 9/11 required anything more than a coordinated group of anarchical lunatics. My father was a commander in the naval intelligence field in the pentagon at the time, and I have since grown up to study in the same field. So don't think that I'm not "well read" enough on this subject to know what happened.

Just like any other conspiracy "theory" (and to be clear, the word theory is grossly misused here), this phantom time idea blatantly ignores multiple points of physical and testimonial evidence. How anyone could be undiscerning enough to buy into this idea before the evidence prevented even the whisper of a doubt from holding any credence, I don't know.

[DeliCiousTZM]

Look, lets not make this an argument over 9/11 as this is obviously the wrong place to do so and no matter what I could say, you would walk away still believing in some absurd notion that 9/11 required anything more than a coordinated group of anarchical lunatics. My father was a commander in the naval intelligence field in the pentagon at the time, and I have since grown up to study in the same field. So don't think that I'm not "well read" enough on this subject to know what happened.

Just like any other conspiracy "theory" (and to be clear, the word theory is grossly misused here), this phantom time idea blatantly ignores multiple points of physical and testimonial evidence. How anyone could be undiscerning enough to buy into this idea before the evidence prevented even the whisper of a doubt from holding any credence, I don't know.

My grandmother always said, people are gonna believe what they wanna believe regardless of facts.

When you get older Sander you will see the world for what it truly is.

Speaking of Phantom time.
We should visit Josephus a historian that were fabricated by the Catholic church, proven to be a fictional character he is sadly still considered a valid source. What is interesting about Josephus is that he manufactured centuries of Christian history and gave a support to the "conspiracy" that Jesus actually existed which there are no proof of.

People lie, Dirt don't

[themoob]

Haha oh wow, there's some crazy as hell people on the internet (The-Monetary).

Back on topic, the phantom time hypothesis is of course ludicrous. What, did Otto III luckily have some Islamic scholars hanging around Germany that he used to forge Arabic documents that mention historical events in Europe between 614-911? How about some Old Church Slavonic speakers to make up pre-911 history in Russia?

It's such a joke.

[DeliCiousTZM]

Haha oh wow, there's some crazy as hell people on the internet (The-Monetary).
It's such a joke.

8% of Historians believe that Josephus is a completely genuine credible source.
26% Believe that he is a complete fabrication.
82% of Historians believe that Josephus is subject to severe interpolation(Meaning people have distorted the truth through manipulated translation and or added segments after his death) or fabrication.

The major source for giving proof to the existence of Jesus is Josephus. Which most historians believe were put there by the catholic church at around 500-600 years after his death. This becomes very obvious when one consider that Christianity barely existed in the 1st-2nd century. And Josephus supposedly lived during the 1st century.

Josephus is still quoted as a reliable source, Against facts and reason.

Haha oh wow, there's some crazy as hell people on the internet (The-Monetary). It's such a joke.

Don't be another defender of the Status quo, question everything!

[themoob]

8% of Historians believe that Josephus is a completely genuine credible source.
26% Believe that he is a complete fabrication.
82% of Historians believe that Josephus is subject to severe interpolation(Meaning people have distorted the truth through manipulated translation and or added segments after his death) or fabrication.

The major source for giving proof to the existence of Jesus is Josephus. Which most historians believe were put there by the catholic church at around 500-600 years after his death. This becomes very obvious when one consider that Christianity barely existed in the 1st-2nd century. And Josephus supposedly lived during the 1st century.

Josephus is still quoted as a reliable source, Against facts and reason.

Don't be another defender of the Status quo, question everything!

The-Montary... claims he isn't crazy, and then pulls magical statistics with no source out of his ass to support his "argument". This is why I hate the internet.