This assumption implies that there is no objective or accurate account of history available to us as all historical records have been tampered with or manipulated in some way

This is not the assumption. Indeed, I think most of what we have is true and I have stated that many times. Most lies, most propaganda, most of The Matrix are based on the truth. But history (as we understand the term) is not "the facts" in isolation. It is the facts and the connections between those facts that make up the story, the conclusions. "History" is the story we tell each other about those conclusions.

I think that most fuckery in our history is in what's left out, purposefully destroyed or otherwise silenced by shoving things down the memory hole, or through derisive ad hominem designed to keep certain facts quiet and not looked at, immediately dismissed because they are in "the bad box." Over the top of the box of facts that is allowed (''the good box"), with it's missing but essential context, is the overarching narrative that fills in the gaps and makes the connections in the incomplete and carefully crafted fact list. That is how history has been rewritten. That can be shown by showing facts that have been left out, and that there is sufficient evidence that it has been done intentionally.

If you click the link in my previous post you will see exactly such evidence, even though it is a tiny fraction of my research for that particular case of revision.

If you read my report, you will see an exhaustive case made for how such an historical revision develops (in a different context), and that it is intentionally done.

If all historical narratives are suspect, then the assertion that "all of history has been rewritten" is itself a historical claim and therefore subject to the same doubts about its accuracy and reliability.

This is faulty logic. If all (or a meaningful portion) of history has been rewritten, all that would need to be done to make the case is provide evidence that there are substantial portions that have been removed, that their removal is intentional, and that the inclusion of those purposefully removed portions indicates that the overarching narrative that is presently accepted is false.

I'm not sure why you have tried to continuously make this argument, but it is fundamentally flawed, at least as formed.

This assumption implies that there is no objective or accurate account of history available to us as all historical records have been tampered with or manipulated in some way

This is not the assumption. Indeed, I think most of what we have is true and I have stated that many times. Most lies, most propaganda, most of The Matrix are based on the truth. But history (as we understand the term) is not "the facts" in isolation. It is the facts and the connections between those facts that make up the story, the conclusions. "History" is the story we tell each other about those conclusions.

I think that most fuckery in our history is in what's left out, purposefully destroyed or otherwise silenced by shoving things down the memory hole, or through derisive ad hominem designed to keep certain facts quiet and not looked at, immediately dismissed because they are in "the bad box." Over the top of the box of facts that is allowed, with it's essential missing context, is the overarching narrative that fills in the gaps and makes the connections in the incomplete and carefully crafted fact list. That is how history has been rewritten. That can be shown by showing facts that have been left out, and that there is sufficient evidence that it has been done intentionally.

If you click the link in my previous post you will see exactly such evidence, even though it is a tiny fraction of my research for that particular case of revision.

If you read my report, you will see an exhaustive case made for how such an historical revision develops (in a different context), and that it is intentionally done.

If all historical narratives are suspect, then the assertion that "all of history has been rewritten" is itself a historical claim and therefore subject to the same doubts about its accuracy and reliability.

This is faulty logic. If all (or a meaningful portion) of history has been rewritten, all that would need to be done to make the case is provide evidence that there are substantial portions that have been removed, that their removal is intentional, and that the inclusion of those purposefully removed portions indicates that the overarching narrative that is presently accepted is false.

I'm not sure why you have tried to continuously make this argument, but it is fundamentally flawed, at least as formed.

This assumption implies that there is no objective or accurate account of history available to us as all historical records have been tampered with or manipulated in some way

This is not the assumption. Indeed, I think most of what we have is true and I have stated that many times. Most lies, most propaganda, most of The Matrix are based on the truth. But history (as we understand the term) is not "the facts" in isolation. It is the facts and the connections between those facts that make up the story, the conclusions. "History" is the story we tell each other about those conclusions.

I think that most fuckery in our history is in what's left out, purposefully destroyed or otherwise silenced by shoving things down the memory hole, or through derisive ad hominem designed to keep certain facts quiet and not looked at, immediately dismissed because they are in "the bad box." Over the top of the box of facts that is allowed, with it's essential missing context, is the overarching narrative that fills in the gaps and makes the connections in the incomplete and carefully crafted fact list. That is how history has been rewritten. That can be shown by showing facts that have been left out, and that there is sufficient evidence that it has been done intentionally.

If you click the link in my previous post you will see exactly such evidence, even though it is a tiny fraction of my research for that particular case of revision.

If you read my report, you will see an exhaustive case made for how such an historical revision develops (in a different context), and that it is intentionally done.

If all historical narratives are suspect, then the assertion that "all of history has been rewritten" is itself a historical claim and therefore subject to the same doubts about its accuracy and reliability.

This is faulty logic. If all (or a meaningful portion) of history has been rewritten, all that would need to be done to make the case is provide evidence that there are substantial portions that have been removed, show that their removal is intentional, and show that the inclusion of those purposefully removed portions indicates that the overarching narrative that is presently accepted is false.

I'm not sure why you have tried to continuously make this argument, but it is fundamentally flawed, at least as formed.

This assumption implies that there is no objective or accurate account of history available to us as all historical records have been tampered with or manipulated in some way

This is not the assumption. Indeed, I think most of what we have is true and I have stated that many times. Most lies, most propaganda, most of The Matrix are based on the truth. But history (as we understand the term) is not "the facts" in isolation. It is the facts and the connections between those facts that make up the story, the conclusions. "History" is the story we tell each other about those conclusions.

I think that most fuckery in our history is in what's left out, purposefully destroyed or otherwise silenced by shoving things down the memory hole, or through derisive ad hominem designed to keep certain facts quiet and not looked at, immediately dismissed because they are in "the bad box." Over the top of the box of facts that is allowed, with it's essential missing context, is the overarching narrative that fills in the gaps and makes the connections in the incomplete and carefully crafted fact list. That is how history has been rewritten. That can be shown by showing facts that have been left out, and that there is sufficient evidence that it has been done intentionally.

If you click the link in my previous post you will see exactly such evidence, even though it is a tiny fraction of my research for that particular case of revision.

If you read my report, you will see an exhaustive case made for how such an historical revision develops (in a different context), and that it is intentionally done.

If all historical narratives are suspect, then the assertion that "all of history has been rewritten" is itself a historical claim and therefore subject to the same doubts about its accuracy and reliability.

This is faulty logic. If all (or a meaningful portion) of history has been rewritten, all that would need to be done to make the case is provide evidence that there are substantial portions that have been removed, show that their removal is intentional, and show that the inclusion of those purposefully removed portions indicates that the overarching narrative that is presently accepted is decidedly false.

I'm not sure why you have tried to continuously make this argument, but it is fundamentally flawed, at least as formed.

This assumption implies that there is no objective or accurate account of history available to us as all historical records have been tampered with or manipulated in some way

This is not the assumption. Indeed, I think most of what we have is true and I have stated that many times. Most lies, most propaganda, most of The Matrix are based on the truth. But history (as we understand the term) is not "the facts" in isolation. It is the facts and the connections between those facts that make up the story, the conclusions. "History" is the story we tell each other about those conclusions.

I think that most fuckery in our history is in what's left out, purposefully destroyed or otherwise silenced by shoving things down the memory hole, or through derisive ad hominem designed to keep certain facts quiet and not looked at, immediately dismissed because they are in "the bad box." Over the top of the box of facts that is allowed, with it's essential missing context, is the overarching narrative that fills in the gaps and makes the connections in the incomplete and carefully crafted fact list. That is how history has been rewritten. That can be shown by showing facts that have been left out, and that there is sufficient evidence that it has been done intentionally.

If you click the link in my previous post you will see exactly such evidence, even though it is a tiny fraction of my research for that particular case of revision.

If you read my report, you will see an exhaustive case made for how such an historical revision develops (in a different context), and that it is intentionally done.

If all historical narratives are suspect, then the assertion that "all of history has been rewritten" is itself a historical claim and therefore subject to the same doubts about its accuracy and reliability.

This is faulty logic. If all (or a meaningful portion) of history has been rewritten, all that would need to be done to make the case is provide evidence that there are substantial portions that have been removed, and show that the inclusion of those purposefully removed portions shows that the overarching narrative that is presently accepted is decidedly false.

I'm not sure why you have tried to continuously make this argument, but it is fundamentally flawed, at least as formed.

This assumption implies that there is no objective or accurate account of history available to us as all historical records have been tampered with or manipulated in some way

This is not the assumption. Indeed, I think most of what we have is true and I have stated that many times. Most lies, most propaganda, most of The Matrix are based on the truth. But history (as we understand the term) is not "the facts" in isolation. It is the facts and the connections between those facts that make up the story, the conclusions. "History" is the story we tell each other about those conclusions.

I think that most fuckery in our history is in what's left out, purposefully destroyed or otherwise silenced by shoving them down the memory hole, or through derisive ad hominem designed to keep certain facts quiet and not looked at, immediately dismissed because they are in "the bad box." Over the top of the box of facts that is allowed, with it's essential missing context, is the overarching narrative that fills in the gaps and makes the connections in the incomplete and carefully crafted fact list. That is how history has been rewritten. That can be shown by showing facts that have been left out, and that there is sufficient evidence that it has been done intentionally.

If you click the link in my previous post you will see exactly such evidence, even though it is a tiny fraction of my research for that particular case of revision.

If you read my report, you will see an exhaustive case made for how such an historical revision develops (in a different context), and that it is intentionally done.

If all historical narratives are suspect, then the assertion that "all of history has been rewritten" is itself a historical claim and therefore subject to the same doubts about its accuracy and reliability.

This is faulty logic. If all (or a meaningful portion) of history has been rewritten, all that would need to be done to make the case is provide evidence that there are substantial portions that have been removed, and show that the inclusion of those purposefully removed portions shows that the overarching narrative that is presently accepted is decidedly false.

I'm not sure why you have tried to continuously make this argument, but it is fundamentally flawed, at least as formed.

This assumption implies that there is no objective or accurate account of history available to us as all historical records have been tampered with or manipulated in some way

This is not the assumption. Indeed, I think most of what we have is true and I have stated that many times. Most lies, most propaganda, most of The Matrix are based on the truth. But history (as we understand the term) is not "the facts" in isolation. It is the facts and the connections between those facts that make up the story, the conclusions. "History" is the story we tell each other about those conclusions.

I think that most fuckery in our history is in what's left out, purposefully destroyed or otherwise silenced by derisive ad hominem designed to keep certain facts quiet and not looked at, immediately dismissed because they are in "the bad box." Over the top of the box of facts that is allowed, with it's essential missing context, is the overarching narrative that fills in the gaps and makes the connections in the incomplete and carefully crafted fact list. That is how history has been rewritten. That can be shown by showing facts that have been left out, and that there is sufficient evidence that it has been done intentionally.

If you click the link in my previous post you will see exactly such evidence, even though it is a tiny fraction of my research for that particular case of revision.

If you read my report, you will see an exhaustive case made for how such an historical revision develops (in a different context), and that it is intentionally done.

If all historical narratives are suspect, then the assertion that "all of history has been rewritten" is itself a historical claim and therefore subject to the same doubts about its accuracy and reliability.

This is faulty logic. If all (or a meaningful portion) of history has been rewritten, all that would need to be done to make the case is provide evidence that there are substantial portions that have been removed, and show that the inclusion of those purposefully removed portions shows that the overarching narrative that is presently accepted is decidedly false.

I'm not sure why you have tried to continuously make this argument, but it is fundamentally flawed, at least as formed.

This assumption implies that there is no objective or accurate account of history available to us as all historical records have been tampered with or manipulated in some way

This is not the assumption. Indeed, I think most of what we have is true and I have stated that many times. Most lies, most propaganda, most of The Matrix are based on the truth. But history (as we understand the term) is not "the facts" in isolation. It is the facts and the connections between those facts that make up the story, the conclusions. "History" is the story we tell each other about those conclusions.

I think that most fuckery in our history is in what's left out, purposefully destroyed or otherwise silenced by derisive ad hominem designed to keep certain facts quiet and not looked at, immediately dismissed because they are in "the bad box." Over the top of the box of facts that is allowed, with it's essential missing context, is the overarching narrative that fills in the gaps and makes the connections in the incomplete and carefully crafted fact list. That is how history has been rewritten, and that can be shown by showing facts that have been left out, and that there is sufficient evidence that it has been done intentionally.

If you click the link in my previous post you will see exactly such evidence, even though it is a tiny fraction of my research for that particular case of revision.

If you read my report, you will see an exhaustive case made for how such an historical revision develops (in a different context), and that it is intentionally done.

If all historical narratives are suspect, then the assertion that "all of history has been rewritten" is itself a historical claim and therefore subject to the same doubts about its accuracy and reliability.

This is faulty logic. If all (or a meaningful portion) of history has been rewritten, all that would need to be done to make the case is provide evidence that there are substantial portions that have been removed, and show that the inclusion of those purposefully removed portions shows that the overarching narrative that is presently accepted is decidedly false.

I'm not sure why you have tried to continuously make this argument, but it is fundamentally flawed, at least as formed.

This assumption implies that there is no objective or accurate account of history available to us as all historical records have been tampered with or manipulated in some way

This is not the assumption. Indeed, I think most of what we have is true and I have stated that many times. Most lies, most propaganda, most of The Matrix are based on the truth. But history (as we understand the term) is not "the facts" in isolation. It is the facts and the connections between those facts that make up the story, the conclusions. "History" is the story we tell each other about those conclusions.

I think that most fuckery in our history is in what's left out, purposefully destroyed or otherwise silenced by derisive ad hominem designed to keep certain facts quiet and not looked at, immediately dismissed because they are in "the bad box." Over the top of that essential missing context, with its factual, but woefully and purposefully incomplete context, is the overarching narrative that fills in the gaps and makes the connections in the incomplete and carefully crafted fact list. That is how history has been rewritten, and that can be shown by showing facts that have been left out, and that there is sufficient evidence that it has been done intentionally.

If you click the link in my previous post you will see exactly such evidence, even though it is a tiny fraction of my research for that particular case of revision.

If you read my report, you will see an exhaustive case made for how such an historical revision develops (in a different context), and that it is intentionally done.

If all historical narratives are suspect, then the assertion that "all of history has been rewritten" is itself a historical claim and therefore subject to the same doubts about its accuracy and reliability.

This is faulty logic. If all (or a meaningful portion) of history has been rewritten, all that would need to be done to make the case is provide evidence that there are substantial portions that have been removed, and show that the inclusion of those purposefully removed portions shows that the overarching narrative that is presently accepted is decidedly false.

I'm not sure why you have tried to continuously make this argument, but it is fundamentally flawed, at least as formed.

This assumption implies that there is no objective or accurate account of history available to us as all historical records have been tampered with or manipulated in some way

This is not the assumption. Indeed, I think most of what we have is true and I have stated that many times. Most lies, most propaganda, most of The Matrix are based on the truth. But history (as we understand the term) is not "the facts" in isolation. It is the facts and the connections between those facts that make up the story, the conclusions. "History" is the story we tell each other about those conclusions.

I think that most fuckery in our history is in what's left out, purposefully destroyed or otherwise silenced by derisive narratives designed to keep them quiet and not looked at. Over the top of that essential missing context, with its factual, but woefully and purposefully incomplete context, is the overarching narrative that fills in the gaps and makes the connections in the incomplete and carefully crafted fact list. That is how history has been rewritten, and that can be shown by showing facts that have been left out, and that there is sufficient evidence that it has been done intentionally.

If you click the link in my previous post you will see exactly such evidence, even though it is a tiny fraction of my research for that particular case of revision.

If you read my report, you will see an exhaustive case made for how such an historical revision develops (in a different context), and that it is intentionally done.

If all historical narratives are suspect, then the assertion that "all of history has been rewritten" is itself a historical claim and therefore subject to the same doubts about its accuracy and reliability.

This is faulty logic. If all (or a meaningful portion) of history has been rewritten, all that would need to be done to make the case is provide evidence that there are substantial portions that have been removed, and show that the inclusion of those purposefully removed portions shows that the overarching narrative that is presently accepted is decidedly false.

I'm not sure why you have tried to continuously make this argument, but it is fundamentally flawed, at least as formed.