Wikipedia: A Disinformation Operation?

Published: March 2020; Languages: DE, EN, ES, FR, NL, RO

Wikipedia is generally thought of as an open, transparent, and mostly reliable online encyclopedia. Yet upon closer inspection, this turns out not to be the case.

In fact, the English Wikipedia with its 9 billion worldwide page views per month is governed by just 500 active administrators, whose real identity in many cases remains unknown.

Moreover, studies have shown that 80% of all Wikipedia content is written by just 1% of all Wikipedia editors, which again amounts to just a few hundred mostly unknown people.

Obviously, such a non-transparent and hierarchical structure is susceptible to corruption and manipulation, the notorious “paid editors” hired by corporations being just one example.

Indeed, already in 2007, researchers found that CIA and FBI employees were editing Wikipedia articles on controversial topics including the Iraq war and the Guantanamo military prison.

Also in 2007, researchers found that one of the most active and influential English Wikipedia administrators, called “Slim Virgin”, was in fact a former British intelligence informer.

More recently, another highly prolific Wikipedia editor going by the false name of “Philip Cross” turned out to be linked to UK intelligence as well as several mainstream media journalists.

In Germany, one of the most aggressive Wikipedia editors was exposed, after a two-year legal battle, as a political operative formerly serving in the Israeli army as a foreign volunteer.

‘The Babyloniaca’ of Berossus – by Stanley Mayer

The Babyloniaca of Berossus by Stanley Mayer Burstein sources and monographs sources from the ancient near east  volume 1, fascicle 5 undena publication malibu  1978 ANET FGrH Grayson JCS RLA RE
ABBREVIATIONS
Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (1948)
Die Fragmente der Grieschischen Historiker (1923-1958)
Texts from Cuneiform Sources, vol. 5, Assyrian and Babylonian
Chronicles (1975)
Journal ofCuneiform Studies
Reallexicon der Assyriologie (1928-1938; 1957-)
Real-Encycloplidie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abbreviations …………………………………………………………. 1
Table of Contents . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……………3
A. Introduction………………………………………………………..4
1. The Hellenistic Period and Ancient Near Eastern Civilization………………………… .4
2. The Life of Berossus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. The Babyloniaca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …6
4. Evaluation ………………………………………………………8
5. The Present Edition………………………………………………… IO
B. Book One: Genesis ………………………………………………….. 13
1. Prologue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2. The Revelation of Oannes…………………………………………….. 14
3. The Great Year……… : ………………………………………….. 15
4. The Moon ……………………………………………………… 16
5. The Walling of Babylon ……………………………………………… 17
6. Unplaced Fragments of Book One ……………………………………….. 17
C. Book Two: The Book of Kings……………………………………………. 18
1. Kings Before the Flood ……….·…………………………………….. 18
2. The Flood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3. Sages After the Flood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .·. . . ……………………………….. 21
4. Dynasties After the Flood…………………………………………….. 21
5. Nabu-Nasir……………………………………………………… 22
D. Book Three ………………………………………………………. 23
1. Tiglath-pileser/Pulu ………………………………………………… 23
2. Sennacherib . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …….. 23
3. Nabukadnezzar II …………………………………………………. 26
4. The Successors of Nebukadnezzar II ………………………………………. 28
5. The Persians . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6. Possible Fragments from Book Two ………………………………………. 29
7. Doubtful Fragment ………………………………………………… 30
E. Appendices ………..·…………………………………………….. 31
1. The Authenticity of the Astronomical and Astrological Fragments……………………31
2. Berossus’ Chronology of the Dynasties after the Flood in Book Two……………………. 33
3. Berossus’ Chronology of the Reigns of Sennacherib and Esarhaddon……………………. 36
4. The Ptolemaic Canon……………………………………………….. 38
5. Concordance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

INTRODUCTION

1. The Hellenistic Period and Ancient Near Eastern Civilization
Alexander the Great’s conquest of the Persian Empire marks a major turning point in the cultural history of the Ancient Near East. Unlike their Persian predecessors, the Macedonians and Greeks were not part of the Mesopotamian culture area, but true aliens, largely ignorant of and unsympathetic to the values and ideals of
the civilizations of their new subjects. True, Greeks had visited the Near East for centuries as travelers, mercenaries and merchants. They had admired and continued to admire the great antiquity and splendid monuments of. its civilizations and had borrowed various artistic motives and techniques and even so important a tool as writing from the area, but they had been and continued largely to be unable to read and understand the cuneiform and hieroglyphic scripts in which the intellectual traditions of these cultures were recorded. 1
Consequently, they were outsiders, dependent for their knowledge on the observations of travelers such as Herodotus for Egypt or romancers such as Ctesias for Mesopotamia and on such information as they could glean from the guides and other members of the Near Eastern cultures who would associate with them. Not surprisingly, the new masters’ view of their subjects was seriously distorted, being based as it was on a curious melange of shrewd if often biased observations and only partially understood oral tradition.
Among those Near Eastern intellectuals who chose to deal with their new rulers we can isolate two essentially  different responses to the challenge posed by them. One group created a literature, both oral and written, of  protest, composing apocalyptic prophecies of the ultimate defeat of their oppressors on the one hand and elaborating still further the folk histories of the great heroes of their cultures’ past on the other. Thus, new conquests were ascribed to Sesostris and Semiramis and alongside them chauvinistic new legends were formed around such figures as Ramses II and Nectanebo II in Egypt, Taharqa in Nubia, Moses and Abraham in Judea 11 -, and Nebukadnezzar II in Babylonia. The other group, however, more willing to cooperate with their new masters, attempted to educate them hy the publication in Greek of authoritative accounts of their respective countries’ history and culture, accounts in which the factual errors of the popular Greek authorities would be corrected; at the same time they provided an introduction to the authentic traditions of their civilizations. The
compilation of such works was a genuine innovation, involving as it did the determination of what constituted the intellectual core of a civilization and then the presentation of that core in a foreign language in such a way that it would be understood by readers almost totally ignorant of it. The greatest and only completely surviving example of such a work is the Jewish antiquities of Flavius Josephus, but the first of them was the Babylonian history of Berossus, composed about 281 B.C. and dedicated to Antiochus I.

————————-
1For examples of late Hellenistic school texts in Greek and cuneiform suggesting that some Greeks attempted to learn cuneiform, see Edmond Solberger, ‘Graeco-Babyloniaca,’ Iraq, 24 (1962) 63-72. laFor Nebukadnezzar II and Taharqa see Megasthenes, FGrH, 3C2, 715 Ff I and 11. For Ramses II see Hecataeus of Abdera, FGrH, 3A, 264, F 25.47-49; Tacitus, Annales 2.60; and for Nectanebo II see Ps. Callisthenes, Historia Alexandri Magni, 1.1-14.
For Moses and Abraham see in particular Eupolemus, FGrH, 3C2, 723 F 1; Pseudo Eupolemus, FGrH, 3C2, 724 Ff, 1-2; and Artapanus, FGrH, 3C2, 726 Ff, 2-3. For this literature see Martin Braun, History and Romance in Graeco-Oriental Literature (Oxford, 1938); and Samuel K. Eddy, The King Is Dead: Studies in the Near Eastern Resistance to Hellenism 334-31 B.C. (Lincoln, 1961).
2Berossus, FGrH, 3Cl, 680 Tt 1-3. For his priorlty to Manetho see Manetho, FGrH, 3Cl, 609 T 11; and Oswyn Murray, ‘Herodotus and Hellenistic Culture,’ Qassical Quarterly, 66 (1972) 209. Paul Schnabel, Berossus und die babylonisch-hellenistische Literatur (Leipzig, 1923) 8-10, dated the work to between 293 and 280. The more precise date of ca. 281 is based on the chronological discussion in Appendix 2. I have followed Schnabel (16) in assuming that the title of the book was Babyloniaca and that the correct spelling of his name was Berossus (3-5). In regard to the latter, however, G. Komor6czy, ‘Berosos and the Mesopotamian Literature,’ Acta Antiqua, 21 (1973) 125, has recently proposed that the form Berosos is correct and that it should be interpreted as meaning ‘Bel is his shepherd.’ Unless otherwise noted all subsequent dates in this study are B.C. 

2. The life of Berossus
By the early centuries of our era Berossus had become a legendary figure. He was credited with the invention of a common type of sundial and honored in Athens for his prophecies with a statue in one of the city’s gymnasia. A family was even invented for him including a wife, Erymanthe, and a daughter, appropriately
one of antiquity’s famous sibyls, Sabbe, the Babylonian sibyl.3 Unfortunately, however, the known facts about Berossus’ life are, in contrast to the legendary, few and undramatic.
In the preface to his Babyloniaca Berossus stated that he was a contemporary of Alexander the Great, and this taken together with the fact that he wrote his book about 281 and lived for a time after that year allows us to set the date of his birth no earlier than about 350. In addition, he identified himself as a priest of Bel of Chaldaean origin. This implies, and the fragments of his book confirm, that he received a normal scribal education in the traditional Sumerian and Accadian classics. 4 Further, his ability to write in Greek, his familiarity with popular Greek conceptions of the Babylonian past, and the very fact of his writing a book such as the Babyloniaca for the instruction of Antiochus I points to his being a member of the Seleucid court, (perhaps one of the Chaldaean astrologers consulted by Seleucus I and his predecessors.5 Finally, some time after 281 Berossus abandoned Babylon and settled on the Ptolemaic island of Cos where, we are told, he became the first to give formal instruction to the Greeks in Chaldaean astrology.6 .
Scant though they are, these few facts about Berossus’ life in contrast to the later “Berossus legend” are helpful in the understanding of his book. They identify Berossus as an individual suspended between two cultures, Babylonian and Greek. Steeped in the traditions of Babylon and of its priesthood and proud of them, Berossus still accepted the new Greco-Macedonian regime as legitimate and had adjusted himself to it. For such a person the ignorance of the Greeks and Macedonians he associated with must by itself have been annoying, but Seleucus I’s deliberate policy of degrading Babylon and its shrines by transferring most of its population to his new capital city of Seleucia on the Tigris and the consequent friction between him and the priesthood can only have been deeply disturbing.7 It is tempting to think that Berossus saw in the accession of Antiochus I, long resident in Babylon as governor of the upper satrapies, the possibility of reversing this policy and wrote his book in the hope that a true account of the Babylonian past and its significance and of the proper relationship between the Chaldaean priesthood and a king might aid in inducing Antiochus to
repudiate his father’s policies. If so, then Berossus’ abandonment of Babylon in old age for Cos,

Germania by Tacitus; 2000 Yr. Old History of Tuisto-/Tuisco-land, Twiskland, & Deutschland

In 1498, a monk named Annio da Viterbo published fragments, (put down as “Pseudo-Berossus”) stating that Babylonian records had shown that Tuiscon or Tuisto, the fourth son of Noah, had been the first ruler of Scythia and Germany following the dispersion of peoples, with him being succeeded by his son Mannus as the second king. Later historians (e.g. Johannes Aventinus) furnished numerous further details, including the theory by James Anderson that Tuiscon was in fact none other than the biblical Ashkenaz, son of Gomer.

There is another history that Tuitsch was a leader and/or descendant from a tribe of Assyrians that moved up into Europe long before this Roman History below was written by Tacitus. Tacitus relates that “ancient songs” (Latin carminibus antiquis) of the Germanic peoples celebrated Tuisto as “a god, born of the earth” (deum terra editum). These songs further attributed to him a son, Mannus, who in turn had three sons, the offspring of whom were referred to as Ingaevones, Herminones and Istaevones, living near the Ocean (proximi Oceano), in the interior (medii), and the remaining parts (ceteri) of the geographical region of Germania, respectively.

GERMANIA by TACITUS

Chapter I

TACITUS, Roman historian

Geography of Germany. “The various peoples of Germany are separated from the Gauls by the Rhine, from the Raetians and Pannonians by the Danube, and from the Sarmatians and Dacians by mountains – or, where there are no mountains, by mutual fear. The northern parts of the country are girdles by the sea, flowing round broad peninsulas and vast islands where a campaign of the present century has revealed to us the existence of some nations and kings hitherto unknown.

The Rhine rises in a remote and precipitous height of the Raetian alps and afterwards turns slightly westward to flow into the North Sea. The Danube issues from a gentle slope of moderate height in the Black Forest, and after passing more peoples than the Rhine in its course discharges itself into the Black Sea through six channels – a seventh mouth being lost in the marshlands.

Chapter II

The Inhabitants. Origins of the Name “Germany”. The Germans themselves I should regard as aboriginal, and not mixed at all with other races through immigration or intercourse. For, in former times it was not by land but on shipboard that those who sought to emigrate would arrive; and the boundless and, so to speak, hostile ocean beyond us, is seldom entered by a sail from our world. And, beside the perils of rough and unknown seas, who would leave Asia, or Africa for Italy for Germany, with its wild country, its inclement skies, its sullen manners and aspect, unless indeed it were his home?

In their ancient songs, their only way of remembering or recording the past they celebrate an earth-born god Tuisco, and his son Mannus, as the origin of their race, as their founders. To Mannus they assign three sons, from whose names, they say, the coast tribes are called Ingaevones; those of the interior, Herminones; all the rest, Istaevones. Some, with the freedom of conjecture permitted by antiquity, assert that the god had several descendants, and the nation several appellations, as Marsi, Gambrivii, Suevi, Vandilii, and that these are nine old names.

The name Germany, on the other hand, they say is modern and newly introduced, from the fact that the tribes which first crossed the Rhine and drove out the Gauls, and are now called Tungrians, were then called Germans. Thus what was the name of a tribe, and not of a race, gradually prevailed, till all called themselves by this self-invented name of Germans, which the conquerors had first employed to inspire terror.

Proof a Mysterious Lost Ancient GLOBAL Civilization Spanned Virtually the Entire Planet…Suppressed by Academia! Why?

This video creator must have visited our site, as he copies some of our very own discoveries, like for example the universal ‘Oannes’ buckets‘ or ‘handbags’ in early Sumerian and Meso American art (SEE: Veracruz Venta Stele above right), but he sadly misses the quintessential point of it all, the ultimate conclusion of WHY all this has been suppressed. His video blurb states, “This (video) will likely blow your mind. 250+ photos and comparisons of ancient sites around the world, show that there is a LOT more to the story of our ancient past. Proof of a lost ancient global civilization that has been hiding in plain sight, for thousands of years. “

The giant Atlas, father of eponymous Atlantis, who mapped the stars by trigonometry and sailed across the Atlantic, duly named after him.

“Hiding”?! The proof hasn’t been hiding; The proof was purposely hidden, but not just hidden it was purposely suppressed? And what exactly was suppressed about it? The logical conclusion from all the true facts that this video brings out, that there was indeed Universal Pre-Columbian Cross-Oceanic Traffic by one shared megalithic polygonal building civilisation of one kind of people, the megalith builders during the true first Megalithic period.  And this earliest Megalithic periodisation was suppressed by (qu)Academia because they – for purely ideological reasons – prefer their asinine periodisation which doesn’t make sense in light of the discoveries in this MUST WATCH video below.

These ideology hucksters prefer the untenable ‘Paleolithic & Neolithic‘ (old stone & new stone ages) periodisation invented by 19th century John Lubbock, a friend and contemporary of Charles Darwin & Lyell Hutton. This rich banker boy under the auspices of the leading naturalists of the British elite’s Royal Society and supported by other bankers & Cecil  Rhodes’ of the ‘Round Table’ secret society (& his Rhodes scholars spreading it everywhere) invented this fraudulent idea that there was a so-called “pre-historic Stone Age” before the Bronze,  Iron, & Industrial Ages.

If that banker boy Lubbock would be alive today, like “Back to the future”,  he would be so embarrassed by what his foolish theories about history have triggered: As would Charlie Darwin as well. They would be red with shame to have been so self-deceived and plain off kilter. Perhaps they are… ashamed..  down there in Hades, watching all the philosophical, religious, cultural, psychological misery they caused with their mental philandering, causing untold tragedy and confusion.

This “Stone Age” has been caricatured to us in popular culture as populated by fresh-from-the-cave morons with an IQ of 27 who could only produce arrowheads, dragging their females by the hair into their caves before evolving into ‘hunter gatherers‘ who eventually ‘learned‘ agriculture & then built houses in communal dwellings that finally “evolved” into modern man & his “smart cities.” That’s us! Ha. This video totally destroys that notion.

We are squatting, cause we used to walk on all fours not so long ago! Our graphic designer says!

There never was such a thing as a “Paleolithic” where Man majored only on un-polished arrow heads, nor a “Neolithic” where they produced polished arrow-heads, but this video gives ample proof of a universal “Megalithic” when the sea-worthy navy-building Sea Kings, a seafaring astronomy savvy, star-guided, early group of smart megalith builders majored on a unique architectural style & technique with a raw material we never knew nor invented.  And these humans were way smarter and taller than us, and for that very reason are actively suppressed by (qu)academia because of their universal Darwinist dictatorship, where every university in the world now teaches their nonsense.

WATCH this video and have your preconceived notions about history rigorously destroyed by true history.

WIKIPEDIA NONSENSE…

2000 Yr. Old Greek Antikythera Computer Defeats Caveman Nonsense & Stumps Darwinist Historians

There is a YouTube comment under the ‘must watch‘ video below, that says, “They ‘handpick’ which ‘discoveries’ are revealed! Some discoveries are much more incredible but hidden and never told about! This is actually nothing in comparison to what they are hiding!”
I am afraid this observation is very true, when one just thinks of the Vatican who refuses to reveal all secret artefacts & documents in its vast underground vaults. This article will explain why.

The Antikythera mechanism is an ancient hand powered Greek analogue computer which has also been described as the first example of such a device used to predict astronomical positions and eclipses for calendar and astrological purposes decades in advance. It could also be used to track the four-year cycle of athletic games which was similar to an Olympiad, the cycle of the ancient Olympic Games.

This artefact was retrieved from the sea in 1901, and identified on 17 May 1902 as containing a gear by archaeologist Valerios Stais, among wreckage retrieved from a shipwreck off the coast of the Greek island Antikythera. The instrument is believed to have been designed and constructed by Greek scientists and has been variously dated to about 87 BC, or between 150 and 100 BC, or to 205 BC, or to within a generation before the shipwreck, which has been dated to approximately 70–60 BC.

The device, housed in the remains of a 34 cm × 18 cm × 9 cm (13.4 in × 7.1 in × 3.5 in) wooden box, was found as one lump, later separated into three main fragments which are now divided into 82 separate fragments after conservation efforts. Four of these fragments contain gears, while inscriptions are found on many others. The largest gear is approximately 14 centimeters (5.5 in) in diameter and originally had 223 teeth.

It is a complex clockwork mechanism composed of at least 30 meshing bronze gears. A team led by Mike Edmunds and Tony Freeth at Cardiff University used modern computer x-ray tomography and high resolution surface scanning to image inside fragments of the crust-encased mechanism and read the faintest inscriptions that once covered the outer casing of the machine.

Detailed imaging of the mechanism suggests that it had 37 gear wheels enabling it to follow the movements of the Moon and the Sun through the zodiac, to predict eclipses and even to model the irregular orbit of the Moon, where the Moon’s velocity is higher in its perigee than in its apogee. This motion was studied in the 2nd century BC by astronomer Hipparchus of Rhodes, and it is speculated that he may have been consulted in the machine’s construction.

The knowledge of this technology was lost at some point in antiquity. Similar technological works later appeared in the medieval Byzantine and Islamic worlds, but works with similar complexity did not appear again until the development of mechanical astronomical clocks in Europe in the fourteenth century. All known fragments of the Antikythera mechanism are now kept at the National Archaeological Museum in Athens, along with a number of artistic reconstructions and replicas of the mechanism to demonstrate how it may have looked and worked. WATCH THIS AMAZING DISCOVERY..