History is written by the victors.. that's why history is screwed up. Science is an educated guess.
Art is subjective and open to interpretation. At least that the silliness they do to you in schools. Study to empower yourself. Peace

Tell me , and please don't take offense. Why do historians omit slices of history? Because it doesn't fit. So you write the most logical explanation of the facts as you see them. That is why I consider historians as librarians. Your merely regurgitating what you've read.

Fact, my studious friend; history is written by the victors. Facts are omitted. Your version is all that is talked about. That is what it means.

The Nasca lines, the heads of Easter Island, the power source in the Bermuda Triangle? How about Pima Punku, a city built by? Moctezuma shared with the spaniards how the city was built by star people overnight. At an altitude were there would be no natural resources.

My friend you have already been trained to call these things anomalous. The picture is bigger than you know. We have 40k years of un accounted history.

I know as college educated bloke like your self will think nothing of what I say. That's ok. I challenge you to investigate these anomolies, like I did. I asure you, if you really research as a scientist, you will understand who are the victors and why people say history is written by the victors.

Tell me , and please don't take offense. Why do historians omit slices of history? Because it doesn't fit. So you write the most logical explanation of the facts as you see them. That is why I consider historians as librarians. Your merely regurgitating what you've read.

Fact, my studious friend; history is written by the victors. Facts are omitted. Your version is all that is talked about. That is what it means.

The Nasca lines, the heads of Easter Island, the power source in the Bermuda Triangle? How about Pima Punku, a city built by? Moctezuma shared with the spaniards how the city was built by star people overnight. At an altitude were there would be no natural resources.

My friend you have already been trained to call these things anomalous. The picture is bigger than you know. We have 40k years of un accounted history.

I know as college educated bloke like your self will think nothing of what I say. That's ok. I challenge you to investigate these anomolies, like I did. I asure you, if you really research as a scientist, you will understand who are the victors and why people say history is written by the victors.

Oh, my. You clearly never learned anything at all about the ACTUAL discipline of History. All of your statements are the classic common prejudices that come from thinking that the way you were required to "do" history assignments for school, was to copy down stuff some other historian said, and regurgitate it in your own words.

1.

Why do historians omit slices of history?

First, you speak of "historians" as though we are a single minded unified group of coordinated conspirators. We are not. We are individual human beings, just as you (I presume) are. SOME historians work for politicians, for example. Those historians are likely to purposely bias what they say, in order to support their candidates.

But that's just those few political hack historians. You want to pretend that ALL historians are that kind? You have a LOT of reading and cross checking to do, and a LOT of proof to pile up before your claim will be anything but your own self-blinded prejudice.

In addition to that aspect of your first question, there is the fact that Histories CAN'T be all-inclusive, without becoming unusable, massive listings of EVERY SINGLE MOMENT and EVERY SINGLE ACTION. So instead, what historians do (when they do it right), is they select what they have deduced (correctly or not) is PERTINENT to the small segment of the past which they are trying to understand, and organize for your consumption. In other words, if I'm writing a history of, say, milk, then including a chapter on Quantum Physics, isn't likely to be applicable.

So if you want to pretend that HISTORIANS AS A GROUP are to blame for whatever versions of the past you have issues with, you need to learn what a real historian is first, then figure out which INDIVIDUAL historian you are upset with, and THEN you still need to find out if they really DID "leave things out," or if it's just that you don't have the same understanding of what is and isn't pertinent to the subject.

Finally, histories are all written at a specific time after the events. It's extremely rare for any historian, no matter how well connected to the people in power, to be able to get their hands and minds on ALL the pertinent information needed to really get the story right. The best that an honest, non-political flunky historian can ever do, is tell you what happened to the best of their knowledge at the time they are writing.

So if the person who made you prejudiced against historians was, say, writing about World War 2, and they did so in say, 1952, and you are reading their book in 2016 and finding missing sections and false statements...you're an ignorant complaining whiner, if you fail to recognize that in 1952, historians did not have the same access to facts about WW2 that we do now. At LEAST half of the needed information was classified top secret.

Fact, my studious friend; history is written by the victors.