I'm not sure what you're talking about, have you thought about not believing everything the Turkish nationalist news papers print about ethnicity they don't lik

I'm not sure what you're talking about, have you thought about not believing everything the Turkish nationalist news papers print about ethnicity they don't like? You might have a hard time fitting into polite company when you start denying the various genocides modern Turkey and the Ottoman Empire were a part of. At any rate here is a google translate of the Bulgarian page on the origins Bulgars: "The origin of the Bulgars is a problem still encourage discussion. In its linguistic affiliation Bulgars are counted preobladavashtiya number of modern scholars to Turk-Altaic peoples. It is assumed that the Proto-Bulgarian ethnos was formed in Central Asia (East Kazakhstan ) between the Caspian Sea and mountain Imeon (Pamir, Hindu Kush and Tian Shan). Other possible areas are Altai, or West Siberia , Tarim basin , western Mongolia, southern Siberia and upper reaches of the Irtysh. From the late 16th century were offered various hypotheses, some of which attract with their whimsicality and stubbornness in defending them. Most authorities reject the concepts of aboriginal (or Thracian) in Slavonic, for Tatar and Finno-Ugric origin of the Bulgars . Popular, but also challenged and Hun are ogurskite options Turanian hypothesis. Some scientific papers and amateur research in recent years revived another hypothesis according to which the proto-Huns were mixed Iranian population." https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%B7%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B1%D1%8A%D0%BB%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5 https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%B7...