posted on Feb, 9 2008 @ 10:21 AM
I'm actually reading page 2 of this thread at the moment, so please forgive me if what I want to point out might also have been said by someone else,
on page 3 or later.... I just didn't want to forget it, whiich I might have done if I read the whole thread before posting - one downside to getting
Anyway, when reading the first two pages, one thing jumped out and slapped me across the face wth a wet fish.
A few of you have consistently pointed out that there is no evidence (only some which is circumstantial) for the existance of an older advanced
civilization, prior to the the currently accepted earliest civilizations... I'm referring, of course to accepted by mainstream archeology.
At least one of you who has pointed this out has also admitted that there are a certain number of 'anomalies' which have been labelled as such. THey
don't fit, they are anomolies, and that's what they remain.
So... let me get this straight.
You loudly thump the drum and proudly proclaim that there is no evidence for ancient 'super' civilizations, and then proudly admit that anything
that doesn't fit get's labelled 'anomaly' and ignored cause 'it don't fit mate'
Erm... that smacks to me of cooking the books...lol
You can't say there's no evidence for something, then regard as evidence only stuff that fits your preconception. That's just plain silly!
Surely, if things are discovered that don't fit with our present understanding of something, it is better to accept that your understanding of that
something might be flawed... rather than ignore what you've discovered because it messes with the comfortable symetry and familiarity of what you
believe to be true?
Anyway, just a thought
... moving on to page 3 now