Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
again, what proof would you accept? There are many other "clues" to where it IS. Yes, my research shows it was, and it, a real place. You want a
hint? You must extract yourself frm the matrix education you have recived, and open your mind.
If you havent found it where you have searched, look elsewhere. It might even be in a place that was once thought to be strictly a myth. And you
also must consider that there is in place "Secret Societies" who's only real job is to divert your eyes from its true location.
Open your mind..........................
Okay, I can see that there has to be a failure in communication here, so I'm going to explain myself more.
I asked for whatever clues you're referring to, whatever led you to this belief that it's not simply prehistoric Iraq.
Give me a starting point.
Give me something to look at.
Give me anything that supports your viewpoint that is more specific than "the land might have been washed away so they had to rename it."
Give me a source of your information.
Give me a reference.
That's all I'm asking for here. Give me some kind of evidence that supports your viewpoint.
I already know, from reading about effects of the Ice Age, Iraq could have fit the general description of the landscape during an Ice Age, which is
why I point to that one as a likely possibility. The reason you don't see it as a paradise now is because the Ice Age is over and it's a desert.
What do you have that led you to your viewpoint?
As far as being open minded, I can do that. I prefer to come to my own conclusions on matters instead of simply blindly accepting anyone else's
ideas. If there is more than one story, I tend to go with the one that has the least gaps.
So please don't lecture me about blindly accepting the education of the matrix. Blind acceptance of any "education" is what leads us from the
truth. In my opinion, more researchers need to keep a truly open mind and factor in information from all sources, orthodox and alternative, before
claiming to have the answers to everything.
In any historical investigation, you have to accept all sources as being possibly valid until you can investigate them further. I'm simply asking you
to tell me your source so I can check it for myself.
I might be right. I might be wrong. But I can't decide that without something to back up both possibilities. I go with whatever seems to have the
most information to support it.
I'm sorry if that seems to be too much to ask.
I thought that was the purpose of this website and this forum, to give everyone a chance to look at other ideas and other sources of information, not
to blindly accept someone else's "education" in place of the "matrix education" you refer to, ASE. Blind acceptance of any idea is neither an
example of being open minded, nor is it denying ignorance.
I'd like to apologize if this seems like a personal attack on your beliefs of some kind, ASE and Netchicken. It really isn't. I just ask for reasons
why I should see it from your viewpoint.