METHOD

If we need to accept something that is hard to believe or accept that it might be an organized lie, it's logical to choose the latter. You hear organized lies daily from everywhere, why not from historians and archeologists?

If anything existed, disappeared, reappeared hundreds/thousands years later, - it never disappeared, it just didn't exist before. There is no such thing as forgotten technologies/knowledge/texts of the ancients.

If anything is claimed in the past that people in similar circumstances don't do today, it's a myth or propaganda. E.g. Roman emperor ... prostituted himself (myth), religious martyrs (propaganda) or Reformation (conquest coverup).

If anything is unnecessary or too complex for that age but sources or archeologists claim it happened, it didn't. E.g. Mesoamerican Long Count calendar (mystification), trirems (impractical fantasy, never built in Venice or Byzantium), Roman dodecahedron (mystification), Aristotle (backdated Byzantine texts).

If cultures coexist, it's no coincidence words/names/symbols match, no matter what any sources say. There are thousands of words that made it from Turkic to Russian, from Greek/Latin to all European languages, etc. Yet when it comes to transition from Semithic/Persian to Greek/Latin, despite of all the acknowledged cultural exchange, trade, cohabitation, there is almost an impenetrable linguistic wall. Is that a miracle or there might have been some biased scholarship? Some "eastern" etymologies are acknowledged, but there has to be more. Consider number of Western European loandwords in Japanese - that's normal after just few centuries of contact. Probability of coincidentally matching words is even lower when it's a complex concept which must have been borrowed by less advanced cultures from more advanced cultures. E.g. unlikely hand was borrowed, even if it sounds alike in some language (it might be common Proto-Indo-European or even older root). But a computer is a 100% borrowing.

CRITICISM

Reading some of the articles you might think that I'm not aware of some mainstream explanation/etymology/story/theory. I am aware, I cross check every article with AI engines to see what typical "scientific" objections might exist. I think my theories make more sense and are more trustworthy than Huns destroyed Roman Empire, Phoenicians burnt their children or philosophers from 2500 years ago were so smart we still teach them in universities. I'm open to criticism, but please make it specific.

Arguments like there is a scientific consensus on this and historians have a lot of archeological and textual evidence aren't arguments. Paper, clay, wood and stone are cheap. Even precious metals are cheap when it comes to propaganda. Look at how much gold/silver is on display in churches. Museums are modern churches just like History is modern Bible. Antiquarians and Church practiced forgery and miracles since long ago and still do. Authentic stuff is misdated and misattributed. Anybody in politics, religion or show business lies, it's in their job description, it's called loyalty and professionalism. Why would Science management be any different? I do see intentional obfuscation of facts and some are simply ignored by mainstream science. There is absense of sober debate on medieval demographics or authenticity of particular artefacts/texts, though both topics must have raised lots of questions. There is a consensus, but not a scientific one. That's why I ignore "lost and found" sources and "quantum fusion" dating labs.

UNFALSIFIABILITY

Comparative linguistics, engineering, demographics, common sense - all 4 converge to Dark Ages and Iran. If at least one didn't - this blog wouldn't exist. Results approximately match official History minus chronology.