CHRISTOPH PFISTER ARCHIVE IIChristoph Pfister, one of the best researchers of the new radical chronology, discovered that there were NO HUMAN SETTLEMENTS PRIOR TO 1700 AD IN SWITZERLAND, and that all major gothic buildings (including the Bern cathedral) were built after 1730, and that all "medieval" documents kept at the Abbey Library were in fact forgeries belonging to the 18th century.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg998158#msg998158 (translation of each page from german to english is available with the help of google translate)
Here is Dr. Pfister's latest work, an extraordinary look at the history of the past four hundred years from a very different point of view (article is in English):
http://dillum.ch/html/manifesto_historical_criticism_ch.pfister_2016.htmAnother noted author, who is neither a flat earth believer, nor a new radical chronologist, has written about the impossible/fake details of Napoleon's biography:
"We are told Napoleon didn't attack England more directly because he didn't like water or something, but that is such a dodge. Napoleon went all the way to Russia through the snows. He sailed all the way to Egypt. Getting across the channel would have been child's
play next to that. If you want to read ridiculous misdirection sold as serious history, I recommend you read the Wikipedia page on Napoleon's planned invasion of England.
There we find this:
However, when Napoleon ordered a large-scale test of the invasion craft despite choppy weather and against the advice of his naval commanders such as Charles René Magon de Médine (commander of the flotilla's right wing), they were shown up as ill-designed for their task and, though Napoleon led rescue efforts in person, many men were lost.
If we are to believe this account by tenured historians, the French in the year 1800 did not know how to build boats capable of crossing the English Channel. But that contradicts other parts of the story, as when Napoleon went to Egypt in 1798. That section at Wikipedia begins:
After two months of planning, Bonaparte decided that France's naval power was not yet strong enough to confront the Royal Navy. He decided on a military expedition to seize Egypt and thereby undermine Britain's access to its trade interests in India.
So apparently France did have a navy, even in 1798. They did know how to build boats. When you see misdirection this pathetic, you know you are being pushed away from something big.
Napoleon was the first Corsican to graduate from the École Militaire in Paris. See, they admit he was a Corsican, not a Frenchman. However, we are being lied to as usual, since we are told he completed two years in the Academy in one year. With almost all the famous people we have studied, we have found similar claims. We have found lawyers who never graduated law school (Clarence Darrow), and prominent clergymen who never graduated or even went to divinity school (Samuel Parris). I should think it would be impossible to graduate from a prominent 2-year military academy in one year, since
the courses are set and are strenuous as they are. It would be like graduating from West Point in two years. I am not aware that anyone has ever done that.
In 1785 Napoleon was commissioned as a second lieutenant. In the four years from 1785 to 1789, Napoleon had two years leave. Really? Is that how a commission works? No. For instance, if you graduate from West Point, you are commissioned for five years, with no extended leave. Any leave you are granted will be for a matter of days.
The next stupid story is the Siege of Toulon, where Napoleon was promoted from Captain to Brigadier General at the age of 24. This reminds us of the made-up bio of George Armstrong Custer, which I pulled apart recently. They keep recycling these asinine stories, since they found most people would believe them.
For example, although Napoleon had allegedly been demoted from his rank of general for refusing to fight in the Vendée, after the Vendémiaire he was promoted to Commander of the Interior and was General of the entire Army of Italy. Neither the former nor the latter makes any sense. Generals do not refuse a major assignment without a court martial. Napoleon wouldn't have just “had his name removed from a list of generals”, he would have been kicked out the army and probably jailed. Instead, we are told he was allowed to ride into Paris like a cowboy, overriding the commands of all generals present. When Napoleon arrived, the Republicans were allegedly outnumbered 30,000 to 5,000, and the generals Menou, Despierres, and Verdiere had all balked, refusing orders from the Convention to fight. Napoleon allegedly saved the day by bringing in 40 cannons which Menou told him were nearby in Port Neuilly. That makes no sense, since Menou could have brought them in just as easily as Napoleon. What were 40 cannons doing parked in the fields west of Paris, when 30,000 men were coming in from the south? Are we supposed to believe that Napoleon was the only one who thought they might be useful, or thought to grab them before the enemy did? Yes, it took great genius to figure
that out. It looks to me like this skirmish was either made up from whole cloth, or—if it happened— Napoleon was inserted into it later, with numbers and details being made up to increase his heroics.
But to return to Napoleon, I now find it useful to remember his quote from later in life:
I have fought sixty battles and I have learned nothing which I did not know at the beginning.
Look at Caesar; he fought the first like the last. I always thought it strange that a man could live his whole life and learn nothing about his field of work. As for Caesar fighting his last battle like the first, I have my doubts. I am pretty sure I could pull something from De Bello Gallico contradicting that, but it is hardly worth my time. Given what we are discovering about Napoleon, the quote becomes easier to believe. If all his battles were staged or faked, he wouldn't learn much about the art of war from them, would he?
For instance, in Napoleon's Italian campaign, the main goal seems to have been looting. He didn't need to defeat Austria to do that. In fact, France was outnumbered 4 to 3 by Allied troops. Despite that, and despite the fact that France had been at war with Piedmont for over three years, we are told Napoleon defeated Piedmont in two weeks. We are told Allied losses numbered 25,000. In two weeks? You have to be kidding me! The only way Napoleon could have killed 25,000 in two weeks is if he had been armed with nuclear weapons. Plus, that number is supposed to be half the Allied total troops. The
paragraph before, we are told Napoleon had 37,000 troops and his enemy 50,000. So the Allies lost half that in two weeks!
We are told Napoleon lost 6,000 in this exchange, so that takes the French army down to about 31,000. But after fighting the major battle of Lodi, Napoleon suddenly has 50,000 men. Where did the reinforcements come from? We were just told the paragraph before that Bonaparte had no chance of gaining reinforcements as the Republican war effort was being concentrated on the massive offensives planned on the Rhine. Nonetheless, with this swelled army, he moved south, besieging Mantua and then occupying and looting Tuscany and the Papal States. Next, he turned back north and with 20,000 men defeated 50,000 Austrians under Field Marshall Wurmser.
But wait. When Napoleon headed south, he had 50,000. He suffered no defeats and returned north with only 20,000? Where did the other 30,000 disappear to? Were they vacationing in Sicily? And we have the same problem with the Austrian numbers. I thought they had just lost 25,000, half their total force. Where did they find another 25,000 so fast? And after the battle, the bad math continues, as Wurmser is defeated, but in defeat leaves with more men than he came in with. The Austrians were
defeated, but nonetheless moved forward to Mantua, to relieve the siege there. We are told they left 45,000 behind to defend the Alps while taking the main body of the army to Mantua. Hold on. So the main body of the Austrian army must be greater than 45,000, otherwise they wouldn't call it the main body. Which means the Austrians have suddenly swelled to about 100,000, after months of losses.
Napoleon then devastated the Austrians again at Rovereto and Bassano, reducing that army to 12,000. But since they must have entered the battles with about 50,000, we are being told they just lost 38,000 in those two battles. A couple of months later, Napoleon inflicted another 14,000 casualties at the battle of Rivoli. Which should have reduced the Austrian army to -2,000. But somehow the Austrians just kept inventing soldiers.
We are told Napoleon captured 150,000 prisoners during his Italian campaign.
Right. And where did he house all these people while he was moving north and south through Italy? How did he feed them? And more to the point, where did they all come from? Remember, at the beginning of the campaign, the Allied forces numbered 50,000. So we are supposed to believe he captured this entire army three times over?
Apparently, soldiers just spring up out of the earth in Italy, ready to be captured, killed, and then miraculously returned to life. In support of my theory that France and Austria agreed to divide Italy between them, we find more impossibilities in the campaign of 1797. In that campaign, we are told Napoleon advanced deep into Austrian territory after winning the battle of Tarvis in March. “Charles retreated to Vienna when he heard Napoleon was coming.” Really, does that sound logical? The Austrians fought like dogs in Italy, when nothing was at stake, but turned tail and ran when Napoleon advanced on their homeland? Plus, if Napoleon was winning with such ease, why would he accept a treaty for peace? Why not continue on in to Vienna and capture it? Why not loot it?
Instead, we are told Napoleon advanced to within 100 km of Vienna and the Austrians sued for peace.
But we have an even greater problem here, one no one has seemed to notice. The battle of Tarvis was allegedly in March. Napoleon needed to cross the Alps to get there, which means we are supposed to believe he took his entire army over the Alps in February. But the passes aren't open in February.
Next, we must analyze the expedition to Egypt. In preparation, we are told Napoleon was elected a member of the French Academy of Sciences. Based on what? He had spent one year at a military academy and the rest of his life fighting fake wars. What did he know about science? He was 29 and probably didn't know the first thing about science.
Of course Napoleon took Alexandria with almost no loss. Despite the French not knowing how to build boats capable of crossing the English channel, Napoleon somehow sailed 50,000 men across the entire Mediterranean, “eluding the British Navy”. Rumors became rife as 40,000 soldiers and 10,000 sailors were gathered in French Mediterranean
ports. A large fleet was assembled at Toulon: 13 ships of the line, 14 frigates, and 400 transports. To avoid interception by the British fleet under Nelson, the expedition's target was kept secret.
Really? Do you think you can keep something like that secret? You think the British didn't have spies? Besides, keeping the target secret would have been meaningless. The British wouldn't need to know where they were going, just where they were.
Napoleon evaded the British fleet all the way across the Mediterranean, despite stopping to conquer Malta. He then landed them all simultaneously in Egyptian port, and immediately destroyed the Egyptian army. The Egyptians lost 2,000 while the French lost 29. Although they admit that Nelson destroyed the French fleet a month later in the Battle of the Nile, Napoleon allegedly remained in the East and led an army of 13,000 against Damascus. Which brings up the question, “How did they get there?” Are these 13,000 supposed to be the remnants of the 50,000 in Egypt? If so, Napoleon must have been an idiot. Despite losing 37,000 men, he continued on undeterred. And if so, why did the English allow them to march up the coast and raid these coastal towns? The English would not have wanted the French moving in that area and could easily have destroyed them, as was proved just a few months earlier. That is why the French hadn't tried this before: they were afraid of getting trapped in Middle East with no way out. Even more to the point, why did the Sultan allow them to do so? Selim III was an ally of the French at the time, and had to be since he was already threatened by Austria,
England, and Russia. We are told he declared war on France after this attack by Napoleon, but if Napoleon had really landed 50,000 men in Egypt a few months earlier, the Sultan would have been aware of that immediately and would have moved troops into Palestine. There is no way Napoleon would have been allowed to march uncontested up that coast.
In fact, the historians admit the Sultan moved against Cairo even before Napoleon moved north. We are told the Sultan had 38,000 men in two armies marching south. There were an additional 42,000 Arabs coming from surrounding areas to back him up. Nonetheless, Napoleon somehow ignored this combined force of 80,000 and moved north with only 13,000. To explain this, we are supposed to believe Napoleon simply avoided the Sultan's 80,000, moving around them to reach Syria.
At no point does the French campaign start making sense, and I now assume it is all fiction. Such a campaign would have been suicide for any involved, so we must assume it never happened. We see this again in the return of Napoleon to France afterwards. We are told he returned on the frigate Muiron, with three other ships as escort. What is not explained is how these four ships survived many months in port in Egypt, with tens of thousands of enemies abroad, British and Arab. We are told Napoleon must have bribed the British fleet to leave him alone, but even that assumption ignores all the more important questions, the first being what happened to his 50,000 troops? How did they get back? Swim? Walk? We are told he left them in Cairo with General Kléber, but the story ends there. What of the 80,000 Turks and other Arabs descending upon Egypt? Did they just evaporate?
Actually, the historians have manufactured an answer to that as well. Kléber allegedly attacked 60,000 Turks with a force of 10,000 at the Battle of Heliopolis, utterly defeating them and retaking Cairo. Right. Being a prominent freemason, Kléber then opened a Masonic Temple in Cairo, serving as first master of the Isis Lodge. Soon after (1800), Kléber was allegedly stabbed to death by a Syrian student posing as a beggar. That is certainly faked to give Kléber an exit, but in any case it begs the question, “and what then?” Well, we are told the French were defeated by the British and the French soldiers
were taken back to France on British ships. If you believe that you will believe anything.
The manufactured wars after the coup also continued, with Napoleon going back to Italy to pretend to fight the Austrians again. And again, the numbers are absurd. At the battle of Marengo on June 14, 1800, the Austrians—after winning the morning and afternoon battles—suddenly got routed after 5pm in mysterious circumstances, losing half of their 30,000 men in a matter of hours. That's right, initial numbers were around 30,000, and the Austrians reported 14,000 casualties. So Napoleon either had nuclear weapons or this is all just fiction. As Chandler points out, Napoleon spent almost a year getting the Austrians out of Italy in his first campaign; in 1800, it took him only a month to achieve the same goal. Yes, and no one found that suspicious? Actually, as we see, it took him about six hours. And again, his crossing of the Alps is equally suspicious, since he is said to have crossed in the early spring. At the time, the passes of the Alps were commonly closed until June. Even now, the major highways over the Alps can be closed well into June; but in 1800 they were in the middle of what is called the Little Ice Age. In some years, the Alps were impassable all summer. Whoever composed these stories knew
very little about most things, including warfare, weather, and everything else.
The next leg of the war is equally risible. Napoleon attacked Austria with 210,000 men, but England despite being a main part of the coalition against France—did nothing. With the entire army of France marching through Germany, England and Sweden could have come down and captured Paris with no effort. Remember, this war was basically France against everyone—except maybe Spain. But England politely left France alone as Napoleon marched every available soldier east. Beyond that, Austria also politely split its army three ways, sending 95,000 under Archduke Charles to Italy—although nothing
was going on in Italy. To answer this, we are told Masséna led 50,000 to Italy, while 30,000 were left at Boulogne to prevent an English attack. Another 20,000 were sent to Naples, as a feint. But that makes the French army 310,000. Even if that is true, it only leaves 30,000 to guard France from the north, west, and south. In a war of France against everyone, it would be the height of foolishness for Napoleon to have moved 210,000 men into Germany.
You will tell me England did not leave France alone: Nelson destroyed the French fleet at Trafalgar while Napoleon was marching. Yes, but England did nothing to follow that up. Remember, Napoleon had been trying to draw Nelson off so that he could invade England. But we are supposed to believe Nelson not only drew the French fleet off, he utterly destroyed it. That should have left France open for invasion, right? So why no invasion by England and Sweden? I suggest to you it because Nelson's attack was scripted. They couldn't have France left completely alone while Napoleon was off in
Austria, so they manufactured this sea battle. That made it appear England wasn't completely sitting on its hands. However, the question remains, “Why a great sea battle like this and then leave France alone? Why not an invasion?”
In southern Germany, we are told Napoleon moved his huge army of 210,000 so fast it was able to outflank an army 1/10th its size on its own ground. Not believable. Even in Germany, Austria split its force, having 70,000 to work with but splitting into a smaller army of 23,000, which Napoleon surrounded. Ask yourself this: if you are an Austrian general, would you go out to meet an army of 210,000 with an army of 70,000, much less 23,000? No, since you know the Russians are coming to reinforce you, you would back up to meet them. Vienna being your home base, you would back up all the way to Vienna and wait for them. Instead, we are told these idiotic Austrians split their forces and moved forward all the way to Ulm, where they were almost guaranteed to get cut off and surrounded.
The story makes no sense on Napoleon's side, either. We are told that on his way to Ulm, he captured 60,000 Austrian troops. Why would he do that? Capturing enemy troops just slows you down, since you have to do something with them. You can't just put them in a bag. And yet while he is capturing all these people, we are told he is also racing across the countryside so fast the Austrians can't even keep up with him. The two claims are contradictory. You can't race a huge army across foreign territory and capture 60,000 prisoners at the same time."