This exercise is an approach to the reconstruction of the History that takes place in Europe, between the 17th and 18th centuries, and which continues in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries. In general, the result is conclusive: there are reasons and evidences that corroborate the search for NC. That is, the NC is confirmed, and this work provides new evidence and reasons to consolidate the work done from Moscow. But, for this same reason, the investigation can be expanded.
The hypothesis of the double chronological leap is confirmed, insofar as the contrast obtained is consistent. But it is necessary to expand its analysis, especially in the other chronicles of Western European nations. In this regard, we need to extend the analysis to the Slavic, Scandinavian and Germanic space.
The main exploration (the transfer of power to Western Europe between the 17th and 18th centuries) is consistent, but it opens up new paths to analyze. For example, it is reasonable to continue the search in the reconstruction of the Prester John and the Ark of the Alliance, and continue pointing at the root of the Pope of Rome. Otherwise, it is reasonable to continue the search for the imperial roots of the Holy Roman Empire, linking the Pope, the last Prester John and the last Great Khan of the Original Empire.
Regarding the new actor in the NC, the Laskaris Komnenos, this research is partially conclusive. On the one hand, the natural ties with the Habsburg history, as well as the coincidence of their shields, is a test of weight. But on the other there is doubt about the scope of the family. The occupation of the ancestry of the Empire connects with the transfer to Russia and the Romanov intruders. And this part of the story is not directly related to the Laskaris. Therefore, we must keep the search in this line.
Summarizing, the following list of contributions to the NC is exposed:
- The double chronological manipulation in Western Europe (1000 and 185 years) and the date of the martyrdom of Christ: in 1185.
- Advance in the mystery of the Ark of the Alliance, from 1486, which describes the Apocalypse, binding it to the Order of the Temple of Solomon.
- The link between the Palaiologos-Genoese alliance and the Horde-Ottoman alliance.
- The search for the global alliance conceal in the Vienna Treaty of 1725, and the subsequent episode of the Treaty of Vienna of 1815.
- Discovery of the chronological key described by Isaac Newton, in the posthumous work Observations upon the prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John (1733)
- Understanding the evolution of the symbols of Christ: from the Great Khan to Christ Jesus.
- The role of Preste John, the bridge between the Great Khan and the Pope of Rome, created along with the myth of Christ, through the intercession of Three Kings (book El Becerro y Egyptian tale Setme II).
- The reconstruction of the plunder of the Holy Land and the subsequent reconstruction of History in Western Europe.
- The chronological relocation of J.J.Scaliger's work, from the 16th to the 18th century.
- The new chronology of the Society of Jesus, begun in 1725 (1540+185).
- The reconstruction of the imperial powers of the Dukes of Alba (Komnenos line, like Andronicus Christ).
- The new chronology of the colonial reoccupation of America.
- Partial reconstruction of the new chronology of Catalans, Andalusians and Spaniards.
- The partial reconstruction of Khazar caste.
- The new chronology of the Catholic counter-reform, from the 16th to the 18th century.
- The links between the decline of Catholicism and the Empire of Napoleon.
- The partial reconstruction of the militarization of Western Europe, thanks to the nobiliary alliances.
- The detailed reconstruction of the Habsburg-Bourbon imperial struggle (Laskaris-Angelus), and the roots of the Spanish and Portuguese empires.
Dialogue with the reconstruction made by the NC
Altogether, numerous lines of work appear that complement the historical reconstruction made by the NC, but at the same time it raises variants. Four issues stand out: a) the 185-year leap; b) the discovery of America; c) the proposed Habsburg-Pope narrative; and d) the Ark of the Covenant.
The hypothesis of the jump of 185 years is not identified by the NC, although it is very close. It is a chronological leap that, according to the reconstruction that is being carried out here, gives a meaning to the dating of the year 1185 as the date of the martyrdom of Christ. It is simple, a thousand years are first created for the glory of Christ, and then 185 to transfer the feat of the discovery of America to the past and erase the recent failed Roman Empire. Somehow, these 185 years would correspond to the two centuries of peace of the Horde-Ottoman alliance that identifies the NC, and the chronological leap would have as an objective to erase its trace. If this jump is confirmed, the consequences are multiple, since it allows to understand an order codified in the official history until the seventeenth century, where the entire European Middle Ages would have moved to the past. The jumps of 185, 370 and 555 years would point in this direction. The reconstruction is, therefore, a relevant tool for the NC, since it allows to corroborate a good part of the dating results already made, and to establish plausible relations.
Also, the hypothesis of the occupation of America from Europe since the 17th century does not exactly correspond to the reconstruction of the NC. The NC indicates that in 1492 this discovery takes place, and that the historical account distorts the facts, but at the same time it says that the hostile colonization begins in the 17th century. In this sense, it can be argued that the official history and reconstruction are written in the 18th century, and that this factor distorts the reconstruction in general, having reconstructed a symbolic story in the fifteenth century, parallel to that of the Apocalypse, that the NC date in 1486. In this line, is also the feat of Hernán Cortés, which the NC places in the 16th century but with an alternative chronicle to the official one. According to the reconstruction proposed here, this feat would have taken place at the beginning of the 18th century and, due to the reconstruction of the past, it moved to the 16th century. However, this factor does not conflict with the NC, since the hypothesis of the NC that concludes that Cortés's chronicle makes reference to the feat of Yermak Timofeyevich who would have been the first to arrive in Mexico (but from Tartary, or Russia), could be taken for granted. Therefore, both reconstructions are corroborated, the one proposed here and the one made by the NC.
Third, the reconstruction of the transfer of the Byzantine powers in Western Europe, in the name of the Holy Roman Empire, together with the powers of the Pope of Rome, dialogues with the NC. In fact, it solves the enigmatic invention of the Hapsburg lineage that centers a good part of the historical reconstruction carried out. It is, therefore, a reasonable and argued explanation with multiple evidences.
Fourth, everything that refers to the Ark of the Covenant, which is dated in the year 1486, also talks with the NC. The NC describes this date as the great Horde-Ottoman alliance. This Covenant, therefore, would also be the great biblical covenant. It is, therefore, a reasonable explanation that complements the work done from Moscow.
The dialogue between the reconstructions is visible, but it should be noted that this work does not deny or contradict the investigation of the NC. It complements its results in terms of hypotheses, pending new evidence or tests that allow its validity to be checked.
In general, it is concluded that ancient history is losing its structural mysteries, which have been incorporated into the official narrative as a symbolic trace of real history.