The "Real" Greatest Conspiracy

To make a long story short: Any "Fact" that contradicts the "Theory" of evolution is suppressed and dismissed.

Watch ALL the videos - I dare anybody to walk away an evolutionist. But don't get me wrong, I'm not saying anything about creationism, I'm just saying we're absolutely living in a world of scientific lies.

YouTube Link

It's the same reason they freak out if anyone challenges how asinine the theory of evolution is. TPTB and the entrenched automatons that run the anthropology, geology, archeology, etc. sections of the museums can't stand the possibility of an alien influence or any hard evidence that doesn't fit their mold.

YouTube Link

The thing you need to realize is that many of these so called sciences are actually more like religions. If you would have suggested to a medical scientist 100 years ago that bleeding somebody was ridicules the best minds in the field would have considered you a flat Earth psycho.

You should look up a book that was written by a scholar named Michael Cremo - Forbidden Archeology. Below are a few more leads...


Website: www.mcremo.com...

Wikipedia Info: en.wikipedia.org...

Radio Interviews and Video Series on youtube:

FORBIDDEN ARCHAEOLOGY - A radio interview with Jeff Rense 2001

HIDDEN HISTORY OF THE HUMAN RACE -A Coast to Coast interview 2007


The video series alone on (the) HIDDEN HISTORY OF THE HUMAN RACE should take up a couple of exciting hours and get you well on your way toward enlightenment, enjoy.

YouTube Link

[edit on 21-11-2009 by factbeforefiction]

all of your "proof" that evolution is a hoax seems to be coming from the whole "out of place artifacts" angle.

unfortunately for you, almost all OOPARTS have been either found to be hoaxes, werent really what they were claimed to be, couldve gotten there in some normal way, or there really isnt any evidence beyond the original claims made and no further investigation was made.

www.badarchaeology.net...
this is about a "mortar and pestle" found in the area mentioned in the first.

under investigation OOPARTS are either faked, or cannot even be investigated by modern technology so no claims can be made about them with any reliability.

reply to post by factbeforefiction

---

Haha sorry, I'm no expert myself but I don't get it. The first videos are so outdated or just false that it says that the scientific consensus is that humans only emerged a couple hundred thousand years ago. I'm fairly certain due to mounting evidence the consensus in the scientific community is that hominids and humans date back millions of years. Isn't it biblical literalists that can't diverge from their dogma and refuse to admit that the earth even existed more than thousands of years ago?

The very fact that science evolves as more evidence is discovered is exactly why science is unlike any religion. It does not proclaim an ultimate truth but points to what the evidence shows us.

If this is about the ancient astronaut theory well I think it is a very intriguing theory but I haven't seen very much hard evidence. Although maybe that is the suppression you are speaking of. Perhaps the ancients had "high technology" but the evidence to support these claims must be very well covered up. I admit it is a very interesting thought and I have looked into the subject quite a bit but I'm just not convinced yet. Why are dinosaur bones and plants from millions of years ago still so visible in fossil records yet there is so little left from major human civilizations?

It's hard for me to take a stance on this issue. I would love to think that human history is so much richer and more complex than what we have discovered thus far (or what is accepted in mainstream science). However, it is hard for me to get past the lack of evidence.

You obviously haven't looked at any of the evidence, read any of the books, watched any of the videos that I have posted, and live with a completely closed mind.

reply to post by Amatheus

---

This post has nothing to do with biblical anything, as I said above...

You obviously haven't looked at any of the evidence, read any of the books, watched any of the videos that I have posted, and live with a completely closed mind.

I understand that what I have posted is extremely threatening to your paradigm. It is for that reason that I was gentle and stepped you up to the evidence presented in the final video series.

You should try to proceed with an open mind.

reply to post by factbeforefiction

---

YOU obviously havent researched the stuff beyond the books.

i watched the videos and listened the first several mindless minutes of the radio show. theres NOTHING there. its all "theres these claims so everything youre taught is a lie...but we cant do any further research on these claims. so these claims are real"

stop being so close minded. research the opposition to your claims and use some critical thinking.

ps stop calling people close minded.
pps you didnt defend your stance AT ALL. you just dismissed everything I and another user said. i still stand by what i said. please rebut it...im sure you wont though.


[edit on 21-11-2009 by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest]

reply to post by factbeforefiction

---

Nor did I say your post had anything to do with biblical anything. I was simply pointing out that the first videos you posted took a slice out of scientific history and you present them as if they are relevant with today's consensus. You then stated that science is just another form of religion which I disagreed with and pointed out the differences between the scientific process and religious dogma.

I very much enjoy reading about and watching videos on alternative theories; including the three videos you posted above. I have spent the last few years of my life doing mainly that. I try to take all information with a grain of salt regardless of the source and consider myself to be very open minded to new ideas.

I will simply say that you are incorrect on all four statements you replied to me with. It is unfortunate that you must resort to making baseless assumptions based on the fact that I do not draw the same conclusions as yourself.

So you want more evidence? OK here's more evidence of Smithsonian cover ups of evidence... et el

YouTube Link

reply to post by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest

---

Dude don't lie about it. Within the time frame of your posts it would be impossible for you to have watched all of the videos.

reply to post by Amatheus

---

Like I said, I understand that a paradigm shift is very threatening, but clearly you have not watched the videos.

i said i didnt watch all of the last one and i knew where to look for stuff about OOPARTS (and i researched as the movies were playing)

ill (try to) get around to watching the last one. i f-ing hate the 10 minute long videos people post as "proof".

ps it wouldnt be MORE evidence...it wouldve been the first piece of evidence you provided.


ok i sat through that drivel.
still...theres nothing there.

where is this cavern?
why the HELL would the smithsonian cover up one of the biggest finds ever!? do you realize how much funding and attention they would get for having such displays and to do the archaeology?

this all stems from ONE article and a brief follow up in 1909. the guy even mentions how the newspapers were rife with false stories.
then the pinnacle of the interview "did they ever find kincaid?"
what followed was a couple minutes of rambling that essentally equaled no. and the other guy seems missing too. "but there was someone named johnson mentioned working at the smitshonian apparently."

THE THING!!! made me laugh. a mummy at a roadside oddity thing? you realize that not only was there a HUGE boom in interest of egypt at the time, but people were buying mummies left and right. EVERYWHERE had mummies. the thing being brought up just shows this interview is a joke.

[edit on 21-11-2009 by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest]

reply to post by factbeforefiction

---

I would disagree that a paradigm shift is threatening, in fact I find shifts quite refreshing. Yet, I'm still unsure of which paradigm you are attempting to shift here.

I listened to your new "evidence" but all I heard was a man talking about a story written in a newspaper about some artifacts found in the grand canyon and he believes that this story is true. Now I don't presume to tell you how you should quantify your evidence but, myself, I don't see this as evidence for anything. Even if I believed what this article said and even if it mattered that the speaker thinks it is true what exactly is this evidence of? The speaker also goes on to say that there is a mummified mother and child which MAY BE from these caves... so what? What does all this prove?

[edit on 21-11-2009 by Amatheus]

reply to post by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest

---

Like I said, you even said it yourself, you did not watch the last series of videos. You need to have an open mind and actually look at the evidence before you proceed to comment on it. Why is that so hard?

reply to post by factbeforefiction

---

jesus damn christ. i watched the first ones. i didnt finish the third because it sounded exactly like the first ones. i HATE listening to interviews. they are boring. i edited my previous post in response to the final "proof" you supplied.

stop. freaking. telling me. to open my mind. and actually rebut things i say.

reply to post by Amatheus

---

Once again, you have not watched the last series of videos in the original post. Why do you insist on commenting on things you don't know about? At least have an open mind long enough to view the last series of videos before you decide to comment on them. Is that asking too much?

reply to post by factbeforefiction

---

Ok, I did not watch the entire series of videos from the first post but I did watch the part one which you embedded .... Some random guy spouting off theories does not evidence make. If you're telling me that there is some huge revelations in the videos following part 1 maybe I'll check it out. I assumed it would be just more of the same guy talking about things.

Maybe you are unclear on what it means to have an "open mind". Having an open mind does not mean that you believe everything anybody says with absolutely no need of any proof whatsoever.

reply to post by Amatheus

---

Having an open mind does not mean agreeing on anything that anyone says, it means looking at the evidence and making your own conclusions. The "Some Guy" is a PHD. and one of the most respected authorities on the subject having studied it since 1984.

reply to post by factbeforefiction

---

So now credentials matter to you? Isn't it the very system you are questioning that hands out these letters after a person's name?

You reject my own "conclusions" as close minded simply because they do not mesh with your own. The other poster and I came here trying to have a rational discussion on the topic at hand and all you have responded with is calling us close minded liars. I don't think I have any reason to continue posting responses.

reply to post by Amatheus

---

Wrong. You are close minded because you CHOOSE to disregard and actually comment on something that you have not even looked at.