if Hawass is truely the egomaniac that poeopole make him out to be then why wouldnt he reveal older civilisations? that stuff would make him a household name the world around. not to mentipon the $$ he'd get for digs. I don't doubt there were cities before Sumer and all, but they weren't advanced like we are and they didn't have nukes

Originally posted by Durabys
I am only asking questions.
My question tags:

1) Why do archeologsts get paranoid, agressive when there is a mention of a culture or civilization that is more then 10.000 years old. What happend in this period of time that they had to be "programmed" by the TPTB administred school brainwashing.

I wouldn't say they get paranoid, I would say they get incredulous because they have people with little to no education making assumptions about things they spend their lives studying. If an archeologist made an assumption on how to best treat cancer, I would HOPE that an MD would get alittle aggressivly incredulous about such an uneducated opinion.

2) Why doctor Zari Hawass the director of Giza Plateu excavation zone gets on the absolute agressive stand when there is ever a mention of rainfall erosion on the Sfinx (last great rainfalls:11000 - 10000 bc - end of the last iceage) or that that the Sfinx represents the lion symbol of the age of Lion (12.000 -9500 bc).

See my answer to 1.

3) Why Archeologists go into absolute silence when someone says anything about the Serbian 3-side piramid near Sarajevo - Bosnia built 10.000 bc built out of a better material than modern concrete (super concrete), or cities submerged into the sea on the coast of India, Pakistan, Cuba, Japan, south Anatolia(Turkey- ancestors of the Minoan culture) which flourished before the sea level rose after , you guess it, the end of the last ice age.

Evidence to the claim of mainstream archeology keeping silent on any of those incidence would be nice. I can't really comment on it.

4)Why is there absolute silence in the MSM about radioactive debris found in old antique by "fire" destroyed cities in Pakistan and India (near new delhi they were building a new residential area, when workers became sick. They learned there are ruins of an old city there, where human skeletons[thousands] werent in the middle of it but on the outskirts of it, facing not the center. Even now archelogists have a permision only for an half an hour to dig there out of health dangers). No crater found, therefor no meteorite impact.
+ Nuclear green "New Mexico-Nevada" like glass found there (+ same glass found on the Sinai penisula, Lybian desert, Mongolian Wastelands near the chinese borders ... "I don´t think i am right with Sinai thing, sorry.")
+ The nearest nuclear facility is hundrerds of miles away.

See answer to 3.

Before responding to your post I should state that I myself do think that the preponderance of evidence does suggest (but not prove) the existence of global, maritime civilization that existed during the last ice age. I suspect that this civilization had developed a very sophisticated level of mathematics and astronomy which was probably motivated by the need develop seafaring navigation techniques -- and the also had a high degree of skill in working with stone materials of all kinds, more so that we do today.

Beyond that however, we start sliding into the realms of pure speculation and fantasy and. while it is fun to speculate, we have to be careful to separate out what the evidence does show versus what we think it might have been. Theories about star gates, aliens and high Atlantean civilizations are not helpful and detract from this wonderful mystery about these ancestors of ours.

Now to my reply.

First the main stream media. Sorry, no conspiracy here, it's just mass global dumbing down. Most the MSM, and the US in particular, want to titillate and pander to the general population's love of reading about sex, scandal, sex, power, sex and celebrities. These stories are not going to make it into the MSM because they won't bring int he advertising dollars. Tragic, and stupid, but true.

Second, the scientific community. There are two factors at work here. The first is money. A scientist is beholding to whoever gives him a job or can fund her research. Winning at the finding and tenure game is all about playing it safe -- say nothing that challenges the accepted doctrines and above all, don't publish anything that might make your superiors look bad by (real case I was involved in) finding data that might contradict their work. Science is highly political. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth, but there is a lot of pressure to only consider the truth that the granting powers or tenure committees say is truth. And if aren't goig ot play ball, there are many, many other starving academics who will.

The second factor is academics themselves. The system I just described allows a certain kind of person to flourish, the kind that Thomas Kuhn referred to as "the puzzle solvers" who like to fill in the details and tinker with solvable problems while ignoring anomalous data. The anomalies are psychological threatening because they imply that this nice little world view that the scientist has might be wrong. When confronted with evidence of an unkown civilization, far better to stick one's fingers in your ears while finishing volume 13 of your opus on "The use of blue pigment in glazing styles of middle kingdom ceremonial goblets."

Out of all the hundreds of academics I know, 80% cannot think outside the box. Of the other 20%, 90% of those won't tell anyone because of the negative impact on their funding and tenure. And the rest become revolutionaries.

No conspiracy, just a confluence of greed, stupidity and lack of imagination.

Originally posted by PC equals Newspeak
I'm not sure you can call it the biggest conspiracy in human history, but there does indeed seem to be a tendency among historians and archeologists to ignore the very possibility of a pre-dilluvian society and to simply ignore major historical anomalies.

Why? Your guess is as good as mine...

In my experience most scientists when faced with something they cant prove, see, test, modify in some way or explain with some babble that sounds extremely high-brow, tend to respond in the same way. They either get angry, dismiss it all together as if ignoring it will make it go away, or call those that poses the question 'crazies, kooks, etc, etc, etc'. In which case I am in good company here at ATS .

My biggest thanks to the Poster, as I had run out of things to research and had nothing peaking my interests...NOW I have something to do.

S&F

Wow! You really couldn't make this up; a conspiracy by archeologists. Although those who are not in on the conspiracy are just conditioned by the propogated lies of those who are. Not much in-between it seems. Maybe it's out of fear that few dare to speak up. A wet-willy can be nasty after all. It doesn't really matter though because Lara Croft can at least be trusted to spread the truth. Oh ,wait. She's a fictional character. Mind you so is this pile of bile.

Originally posted by HankMcCoy

Originally posted by Durabys
I am only asking questions.
My question tags:

1) Why do archeologsts get paranoid, agressive when there is a mention of a culture or civilization that is more then 10.000 years old. What happend in this period of time that they had to be "programmed" by the TPTB administred school brainwashing.

I wouldn't say they get paranoid, I would say they get incredulous because they have people with little to no education making assumptions about things they spend their lives studying. If an archeologist made an assumption on how to best treat cancer, I would HOPE that an MD would get alittle aggressivly incredulous about such an uneducated opinion.


Evidence to the claim of mainstream archeology keeping silent on any of those incidence would be nice. I can't really comment on it.

Finally a educated answer. As a trained archaologist, may I answer the OP....there is no conspiracy, just "pop consiracy". I see alot of pop conspiracy on ATS esp in the ancient civilisations forum.

They do not go silent, they are probably laughing at the fringe stuff, you see the fringe stuff is mostly like believing that Star trek is real.

Its years of education and hard work in the feild daily for little or no pay, and you want them to spend their time answering sci fi fans fringe theories?
Its like telling them they should also respond to programming games, Or beoming medical surgeons. The connection to those realities is pretty much the same.

If civilizations existed 100,000 years ago then scientists would have to explain where all of these people went. Obviously, their lineage was destroyed, their advances were destroyed, as well as any other "traces" that may have been left behind. (I am referring primarily to the lack of what we find -- considering the amount of time humans may have existed -- we should be inundated with bones, skulls, artifacts, etc.)

Now, to say that there were people that roamed the Earth back then, and subsequently disappeared, you are opening up the entire possibility that what is written in religeous texts, on the pyramids, etc. may in fact be TRUE.

Imagine if the Mayan stories about wood people, etc. were true? That four entire species of humans were destroyed prior to this one?

What a can of worms that would open.

I've always thought that most of the references to serpents, gods, etc. from ancient texts are more likely to be cosmic events, such as meteors, CME's etc. Without technology or the capability to understand what CME's, for example, are comprised of -- I can completely understand describing it as a "serpent on fire" that extended from the heavens above.
The problem with saying that part of, any part, of the Bible, Quaran, etc. is TRUE, then people will begin to seek out WHAT ELSE within those texts is true.

One can not say that humans have existed, and evolved, beyond what we see today. To acknowlegde that, would acknowledge the realization that at some point, our current line of humans too will disappear.

The majority of society can't handle that. Couple that with the theory about leaps in evolution occurring fully every 26,000 years -- with various changes on a smaller scale occurring at the midpoint of 12,000 years -- and viola!

Chaos.

No scientist is going to set an end date for civilization. And no, saying something along the lines of "billions of years from now" is hardly pinpointing extinction. No matter whether they say we have 5 years, 100 years, 1000 years, or 5000 years -- that will be carried throughout and eventually that society will have to deal with it. And it won't be pretty.

this is what I call slave people ... if they cant even answer a question ... if they cant even ASK questions ... well, they have a huge mental disorder

Ill also address the advanced ancient civlisations theory.
We have thing called a archaeological record.

We have imprints for life activity (all life including dinosaurs) imprinted on the earth going back millions of years, the record shows hominoid developemnent clearly with a intelligence incline.
There is not one shred of conculsive evidence to suggest that there is one civilisation was here over 10 000 years ago, if there was it would be investigated and a very exciting find.
The archaological record is full of past religions and cultures that intefere with WASP TPTB ideals, and that is presented.

Originally posted by HankMcCoy
I wouldn't say they get paranoid, I would say they get incredulous because they have people with little to no education making assumptions about things they spend their lives studying. If an archeologist made an assumption on how to best treat cancer, I would HOPE that an MD would get alittle aggressivly incredulous about such an uneducated opinion.

Ah but how else do we learn? Sure we could rely solely on text books, but that only teaches us what we as mankind already know or assume as truth. It should not be an 'educated' individuals disposition to treat those that may or may not be as informed as they are with an ill temper. If they have evidence that debunk those that are making these assumptions that are such an enormous insult to the enlightened ones intelligence, then why not say so instead of reacting in a way that would suggest that they are really upset due to lack of evidence or knowledge? Answer: people of that supposed level of intelligence hate to look stupid.

P.S.- Intelligence, proven or self-proclaimed, is never a good reason to look down on, talk down to or degrade ones fellow mankind.

I think a lot of people tend to overglorify archaeology as a whole.
I won't be so bold as to say it isn't a scientific field, but I would be bold enough to say that overall it is far behind other, more notable, scientific endeavours.

A LOT of archaeology is based on speculation. These people are historians, not scientists. And herein lies the problem. (don't flame me for this as I do understand that the archaeologist must be abreast of scientific methodology such as geology)
Lets take Zahi Hawass, for example. I think the man coined the term pyramidiot. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised to see it added to websters someday (and boy could you imagine the smugness if that were ever to happen ). Anyhow, for years upon years upon years it was generally accepted that what Herodotus said of the GP construction was true. (100,000 Hebrew slaves built it in 20 years). Yet get Hawass on the scene and he flips it on its head because he found some barracks and evidence that these people may have enjoyed themselves on the job. So therefore no slaves?! Hmmm... This line of reasoning is speculative. Purely.
My mind wanders to all of the cultural developments of slave life here in America as a reference. An large portion of modern music owes its origins to slaves having a good time and playing music.
Now, I'm not arguing that they were built by slaves, just that the reasoning seems to be flawed.

Either way you look at it, archeaology is, in many cases, a non-testable "science." I personally would love to see more people call a spade a spade here and call it what it really is, hypothesizing of an observed phenomenon. One that can never be verified, accepting the invention of time-travel.

The point is just as many others have already stated. The alternative views are calling into question all of the education (see indoctrination) of the archaeologists in question. No way they will ever consider it worthy of pursuit. At least not as a whole.

And to make matters worse, not only do they deny it, they spend their time using devious debate tactics in its defense. Ad Hominem and strawman arguments are nearly all I see from these people. (see pyramidiots and "brown people can't stack rocks")
The "brown people can't stack rocks" line of thought REALLY gets me going because from what I can tell nobody actually ever says that.
Usually the way it goes is people are calling into question what the archaeologists consider as gospel truth based on engineering factors, not rock stacking ability, and with engineering being the question at hand, it is something that can be pursued through scientific means. But it rarely is. The debate usually takes a turn for the worse with all sorts of name calling involved.

I don't mean to generalize the whole of "academia", just a few. Or maybe more than a few. I understand there are people with very good intentions involved, and most likely all of them start out with good intentions. Problem comes when they are faced with a question that they have never considered from someone that hasn't spent nearly the amount of money or time they have towards the subject. Defense mechanism for the ego.

And I thought the point about how people are generally afraid to go against the grain due to funding and reputation concerns was a great point also.

Bottom line is that archaeology is a hands on history lesson. Not a scientific pursuit.

[edit on 20-11-2009 by JayinAR]

I'm waiting for Zahi Hawass to die as maybe we might actually learn something. Everytime there is ANYTHING on TV or an announcement about a discovery in Eqypt, his paws are all over it and it very quick to denounce any possibility that is outside of his point of view.

Me thinks he knows a LOT more than he wants us to believe.

Well current theroys suggests that the Reps (Reptilians) are native to earth and live mostly underground. ( this might be where we get dragons from) now we might be descendants from a race that tried to colonizes earth. Now something must have happened the ship might have been lost or destroyed. Without the ship our ability to educate our youth was lost and in a few generations we lost are knowledge. That spot where all the fallout is at could be where the ship was lost at.

To bad I have no proof to back it up.


[edit on 20-11-2009 by Raregolddragon]

This is actually pretty interesting, when I get home from work I'm going to do some digging and will get back to you.