Originally posted by timoothy
here's a piece of info on supressed finds.
A poor bit of information
We were just about to form an expedition to the site when another huge foundation was located nearby. Some symbols, possibly First Tongue, were
described on one of the stones. But, sadly, the site was abruptly shut down and the excavations were bulldozed with earth by some arm of our own
government. An informed source close to the family that owns the land reported that the family was threatened with harm if they allowed anyone to dig
on their land in the future. They were told to forget what they saw. This type of threats remind one of the aftermath of Roswell in the late
'Some arm' of the government? They were 'just about' to study it when it got bulldozed? Please. The page is little more than peopel repeating
the accustation that there is a conspiracy to coverup information.
If it can be proved that the Egyptians did not build the Great Pyramid in 2500 BC using primitive methods, or if the Sphinx can be dated to
9000 BC, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.
Sure, that'd be spectacular. Unfortunately, no one has ever been able to prove anything like it.
Orthodox views of cultural evolution are based upon a chronology of civilisation having started in Sumeria no earlier than 4000 BC.
Thats the general understanding that has been arrived at based upon hundreds of years of research and independent studies, yes.
The theory does not permit an advanced civilisation to have existed prior to that time. End of discussion. Archaeology and history lose their
meaning without a fixed timeline as a point of reference.
This is completely untrue. Archaeologists and scientists do not reject information simply because it clashes with the 'orthodox' theories.
Since the theory of "cultural evolution" has been tied to Darwin's general theory of evolution, even more is at stake.
Cultural evolution has nothing to do with darwinian evolution. "Evolutionary" as a method and mode of sociological study is not
the same as
darwinian biological evolution.
this conspiracy begins, it is with two filters: credentials and peer review.
The only groups complaining about credentials and peer review are the ones that can get neither, iow, incompetents and the unstructured. getting
'credentials' is not particularly important anyway, and all peer review means is that when you submit a paper, its reviewed by other knowledgeable
people. They read and consider your paper submission and, if they have any criticisms, they detail those criticisms and return the paper to you, or
rather the editor, who decides to publish or not based on that, and then returns it to you. Peer Review is the enemy of people who cannot
good work. Please demonstrate
cases where a paper was submited to a respectable journal, but was rejected, soley
because it suggested,
based on good evidence and a good rational, that there was an advanced society in ancient times.
Modern science is now a maze of such filters set up to promote certain orthodox theories and at the same time filter out that data already
prejudged to be unacceptable.
Your estimation is completely and wholly wrong. These 'filters' are such senseible things as 'reputation and standing', ie, 'is this guy a known
fraud' or 'does this guy do good work'. If the answers are positive ones, if you are a person not known to be unreasonable, fraudulent, or
irrational, then people tend to listen to you. If you have been through a rigourous training program, such as a good phd program or a good MS degree
program, or have worked for a good musuem for a while, then too people will tend to give you the benefit of the doubt and listen to you. And peer
review, while not perfect, is nothign more than knowledgable people studying your work. If it has gross errors, makes irrational conlusions and
illgoical leaps of reasoning, then they will state that and return it to you and you can correct your errors and resubmit
Evidence and merit are not the guiding principles; conformity and position within the established community have replaced objectivity, access
Why? Because a theory that you favour without sufficient evidence or reason, is generally rejected?? Its not like Scientists stamp ideas with the
word 'scientifically approved' and pass them around, while perfectuly good ideas languish without approval. Science is up to every scientist to
perform. Things like advanced ancient socieities with nuclear rockets and the like are widely rejected, not simply because 'science as an
organization' rejects them, but because the vast majority of individual scientists reject these theories based on the evidence. Its silly to say
that these ideas are somehow supressed, they're all over the place, and they're crap. They're inevitiably not based on any sort of evidence or
rationale, and their big supporters at best end up saying 'you can't prove it wrong' or some other such nonesense.
Crackpots are the ones who make an evaluation with no clue as to what has been presented as substantial evidence
Neither you, nor the authors of those webpages and 'studies' you cited, have presented evidence, substantial or otherwise.