posted on Dec, 7 2010 @ 06:30 PM
OK, so wait a minute....
I read the retraction article. Too many questions come to mind. Don't get me wrong - I've relinquished this into the hoax abyss. But a few things
are not adding up for me, regardless, and I wonder if we'll see this resurface again.
First, the source of the original statements came from two people who were present at the conference. He never mentioned who those people were, nor
did he question them as to their honesty. He just sort of barreled right over this little detail. That would have been my number one goal, and I
would have had an axe to grind with those two for giving me bum scoop. But he never admitted that they gave him bum scoop either. Two different
people, reporting the same things? Do those two people know each other?
Second, I'm wondering if some of those statements were actually made, but were embellished by the reporters, leaving Dr. Shaheed to tap dance his way
off the stage....would he have any other choice??
Third, to those who would "reprimand" members for pursuing the truth on this, had they not, then we wouldn't know what we currently know. The
responsibility lies in the hands of Michael Cohen, who initially wrote the article...he is the one responsible for making nice with the Doctor and
apologizing for all the attention. But if I may fall back on a bit of philosophical wisdom here....there are never victims. We ALWAYS get what we
earn, even if it doesn't appear that way at first blush.
So on that note, we have hit a brick wall, and nothing more can be found out.....but in my mind, it doesn't make it truth or even partial truth.
Again, I will say, just because someone "reputable" speaks a lie, doesn't make it any more true. It just appeases the skeptics and frustrates the
believers. I am in the middle here. But I felt that the article was nothing more than someone shoving fluff in my face as they tried to undo what
they had done. There was no evidence presented there either, just a bunch of quotes....it goes both ways. My gut feeling is that this had huge
ripples in Dr. Shaheed's world, and he had NO CHOICE but to deny any and all comments that were reported, regardless if they were taken out of
context or not.
As for the "new-age fundamentalists" who have the crystal theory....the article portrayed them almost like criminals. I'm not one of these
believers, by the way, but I do feel everyone has a right to come to their own truth in whatever way they choose, and I'm open to any and all
theories with at least circumstantial evidence to support it. Who are these people? What are their backgrounds? What are their educations? See,
those types of things are "reputable" to me, but the article made it appear that they were just a bunch of wackos. ARE they wackos? I don't know.
Where does this crystal theory come from and where is the evidence for that? That's a new one for me. But apparently they know something that they
vehemently believe in, because they caused Hawass to make a public statement denying the crystal exists, (does anyone expect he'd do otherwise if the
conspiracy is true?)
Eh, how I feel right now....like I just ate a huge delicious meal and then hurled it up. Incredibly unsatisfied with either argument or side. To
accept this, would be to accept that there is no conspiracy regarding the secrets of the pyramids....none....zilch....nada. To deny it, would be to
consider that there is a cover up, in which the lies could go deeper than any of us can imagine. I suppose it's merely a matter of choice right now,
because neither can proven one way or another.