reply to post by Kandinsky
Kandinsky: You use Steen-McIntyre in two ways. First, to establish academics are quick to suppress findings that challenge accepted models.
Second, you use the first assertion to build an argument that if they suppress evidence it allows for the possibility that they are hiding 'forbidden
archaeology..
SC: No one is arguing that such will support ideas of advanced technologies. Lost civilizations? Well tell me then – if these artefacts are indeed
250,000 years old, exactly what civilization placed them there? None that I have ever heard of so I guess they pretty much fit the definition of a
“lost civilisation” since we did not even know they existed.
Kandinsky: See. You did it again
SC: Not quite sure what I have apparently “did” again? Do explain.
Kandinsky: A loose collection of stone age populations using stone tools is not a civilization. There is evidence of such tool use going back
up to 500 000ya and they are not considered a civilization.
SC: Well, we know this but you miss the point. If the present historical paradigm is correct then there should have been NO ONE on that continent
until - at best - 20,000 years ago. That there were people on that continent prior to the last two (possibly three) ice ages is the point. And it
does make one wonder – how much of any civilisation would have survived after two or three ice ages? And it makes one question further – are
these finds of Steen-McIntyre and her colleagues merely the proverbial tip of the iceberg?
SC: And let us not downplay the ramifications of this research being verified for it will place so much of what was formerly believed right in
the dumper. We are talking about a civilisation that existed on another continent at least two, possibly three ice ages ago. Where did they come from?
How did they get there? Were they always there? But that's an entirely different discussion.
Kandinksy: A common misconception amongst those that believe in 'lost civilizations' and 'forbidden archaeology' is that the world will be unable
to accept new findings.
SC: Eventually! In the interim the old guard ensures careers are destroyed, researchers are pilloried and vilified. Steen-McIntyre’s evidence –
confirmed by her colleagues – is as solid as one can offer. But the old guard dismissed her and the evidence through nothing but circular
reasoning. “Well, we know there was no one on that continent prior to 20,000 years ago so your evidence is flawed.” Steen-McIntyre’s evidence
was NOT flawed. The historical paradigm is flawed and not only flawed but jealously guarded. Once again we see that someone’s ego prevails over
hard science.
Kandinsky: It has managed to do so thus far...
SC: Eventually – when the old guard and their egos are removed from the levers of power, only then has the science a chance to finally prevail. But
these people really do let their egos hold back progress, don’t they!
SC: And with every revelation of suppression or distortion of evidence by academics you think this does not harm their credibility? Well, I beg
to differ. The hypocrisy of the professor holding up EVD’s book to his students is thoroughly detestable.
Kandinsky: I notice that you are literate...Did one of your teachers commit a miscarriage of justice against you?
SC: As far as I remember I had fantastic teachers at every level of my education, most of whom taught me to seek my own truth. I have no gripes here
and I really don’t see the relevance.
Kandinsky: I only ask as your contempt for 'academics' seems slightly more personal in tone than most. I don't believe anyone claims that
academics are above the petty traits that humans are heir to. Nonetheless, to characterize a section of humanity amounting to several million as
hypocrites and liars appears in, some small way, over the top?
SC: Let me clarify - I do not have contempt for ALL academics. I certainly have contempt for those academics who disregard or distort evidence to
"protect" the prevailing paradigm and who, consequently, present a distorted historical narrative. And my contempt in this regard is no different
to the way many here have contempt for the way EVD and other unorthodox writers present their evidence.
The academics are professionals that we are supposed to be able to trust so I regard it as a betrayal of that trust when evidence that proves a
different truth of our past is disregarded or distorted by these individuals. EVD does not expect our trust nor is he given it. Professional
academics are in a position of trust. They should not be abusing that trust. Period.
Regards,
Scott Creighton
