posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 10:26 PM
Well, there are some "patterns" repeated here (went through the Ooparts and up to the Sphinx section, not in too much detail but enough to get a
grasp on things). In many cases, the alleged "discoveries" are totally undocumented and the actual discovered items are nowhere to be found (last
bits in the Ooparts section and a few before that). In most cases, the only "evidence" for the existence of these items is a scrupulous reference in
some regional newspaper with not one documented study of the items themselves - yet they are considered "fact"!
In other cases, where the "item" is undoubtedly there (like the Inca walls and megalithic structures), the use of the term "perfect" is simply
overwhelming, presumably to create a desired effect. Whatever explanation is offered by the mother of all evils is quickly discarded (because, let's
face it, it is "accepted" and we don't buy what's accepted) and some vague unsupported theory is proposed instead. Small problem, no evidence for
the "true" or "correct" theory, but that's never a problem. No religion has based its existence in solid evidence, why would this one?
Yet, in some cases, to display perhaps the impossibility of some items, it is said that it was "proven"...something (the age of item A is this many
thousands of years, item B was a fake, scripture C says this or that, etc). No mention though as to by WHOM it was proven. It's no small thing, think
about it for a moment. If it was proven by the mother of all evils then not all things academic are false/hidden/distorted/whatever. If it was proven
by someone outside the academic "circle" then why not mention a name? Incredibility? Doubt? Fear? (fear of one's crops withering, cattle falling
sick, wives dying, what?) Is there a "line" that defines what academia is telling us and is correct and what is not - and if so, who draws the line
To sum my questions up, what can we be SURE of, from what we are taught? Some things, many things, all things or no things? And please, make the
answer as definite and "final" as possible. No moving the "line" back and forth to suit your needs. A decision is necessary here, what can we
trust? Is all what science tells true, is it partially true, is it entirely false? Enlighten us please because, frankly, this cannot go on! We, heck,
I need to know if archaeological, among other scientific knowledge, interpretation of material finds is to be trusted (we will get back on other
fields like mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology and geology later on - it's along read!!), where it is wrong and what is the correct answer.
This book, so far, fails to provide the faintest of answers to these questions, just discards everything proposed by true scholars to lay the
groundwork for whatever end - always outside the "box".
Quick question about the Sumerians who allegedly knew of the Pyramid of Giza 1500 years before it was built. If they were so advanced in their ways
and had such vast knowledge of places and buildings (and perhaps even purposes?) that lay 2,000 miles, if not more, away from their "base", why
their writing was so "crude"? Why not some more "legible" manifestation of writing, one that would not have most scholars guessing, at best, and
one that would not allow the Sitchins of this world present their wildest speculations as accurate translations?
Another quick question. It may not be as old as the Pyramids, nor so "grand" in scale. It was built by marble carried from an ISLAND (which means
sea worthy vessels able to carry good amounts of marble blocks) on a rock and possesses some unusual qualities (it has no straight lines whatsoever,
its columns appear to be equal in width when they stand in front of a light source yet none is the same width as the next, to name two that come to
mind). so, according to "out of the box" thinking, why was the Parthenon built and how?? Remember, no "accepted" theories! And, as always, proof
is required if not demanded!!
P.S. these questions are directed to the author of the book linked above. If no good answers are provided by him, any takers that are of the same
"religion" are welcome.