But you're insufferable. When you say people are using "cabal history" as their source, well then friend, the onus falls on you to prove why that history is incorrect. If you cannot prove it and give the "true history", with source, not belief, well then you're dangerously close to strawman territory.
"Everything is a lie!" doesn't prove what you're saying, though I'm sure it makes your feel better. And this goes for everyone here too. Everything is a lie is the easy way to cover for not having any answers.
Because old history did not have the logging technologies as we do now.
How you record history matters does it not?
When I took history in high school.
Our teacher sent 5 people in the hall.
He called one person in to tell them a small story.
Then he told them to call another person in and tell th them the same story.
We repeated the process until the last person.
He told us.
Do you see how much the story has changed once the original source was passed down from person to person?
He was teaching us to understand that most old history has been altered so much. That we have to be careful when committing to any historical point of view.
Yes of course it changes. But we don't have the original story to tell us "how" it changed. In your example, the teacher gave the original story, so we have a baseline.
So in the argument you and the other dude were having, you both were drawing on something that could be incorrect, or a half truth, or even 100% true.
But the further back we go, the less we know for sure .
I don't even disagree with you, necessarily.
But you're insufferable. When you say people are using "cabal history" as their source, well then friend, the onus falls on you to prove why that history is incorrect. If you cannot prove it and give the "true history", with source, not belief, well then you're dangerously close to strawman territory.
"Everything is a lie!" doesn't prove what you're saying, though I'm sure it makes your feel better. And this goes for everyone here too. Everything is a lie is the easy way to cover for not having any answers.
Common sense tells you I am correct.
Because old history did not have the logging technologies as we do now.
How you record history matters does it not?
When I took history in high school.
Our teacher sent 5 people in the hall.
He called one person in to tell them a small story.
Then he told them to call another person in and tell th them the same story.
We repeated the process until the last person.
He told us.
Do you see how much the story has changed once the original source was passed down from person to person?
He was teaching us to understand that most old history has been altered so much. That we have to be careful when committing to any historical point of view.
Yes of course it changes. But we don't have the original story to tell us "how" it changed. In your example, the teacher gave the original story, so we have a baseline.
So in the argument you and the other dude were having, you both were drawing on something that could be incorrect, or a half truth, or even 100% true.
But the further back we go, the less we know for sure .
So when I said cabal history.
We only have versions that they have controlled that is good for them.
You proved my point.
We don’t have the original story to begin with.
We have the altered future versions of history. Which is missing important details to our perspectives.
Well you assume it's altered
You just proved my point.