posted on Apr, 2 2004 @ 02:02 PM
I've wondered about this sort of thing for some time. For me, it's all linked together on a global scale. There are certain anomalous artifacts
and structures that simply cannot be satisfactorily explained via the established structure of history, and we by and large either ignore them or
postulate some wildly inadequate explanation to crowbar these items into what we "know" of history.
The pyramids are an example. I don't know what they are, but I am certain that they were not built by any Egyptian pharoah, if only because the main
pyramids, which are obviously the oldest of them, are markedly superior in quality to later attempts by later rulers. So architectural science
declined in the intervening years? Or was building a pyramid something that the Egyptians were trying their best to copy from pre-existing originals?
I think there's evidence that a lot of "historical fact" is presented in a manner that keeps hidden agendas intact, and that one of the chief
agendas is mankind's own arrogance. We want to believe that we were here first, that nothing was sentient before us and no species or antecedent was
ever as technologically advanced as we. But the evidence suggests, in some cases, that this just isn't so.
However, none of this means that I believe the bit about the 8 foot skeletons with 6 toes. I merely concede it as a possibility.