posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 11:06 AM
Conventional archaeology generally accepts almost as fact that civilisation began with the dawn of the Sumer around 3000BC. Yet countless discoveries
have proved this date wrong and suggests that humans could have began civilisation hundreds of thousands of years ago. This notion is seen as anathema
to Mainstream archaeologists and they denounce it violently without reason or proper understand.
For example, the common defence these mainstream archaeologists have about numerous ancients sites like the Pyramids, Tiwanaku, Stone Henge etc, being
precisely built to mimic star constellations and the Precession of the Equinox, as just "coincidence". I asked the Dean of Archaeology at my local
university about this and he also said they are just "coincidences". Explain to me just how the layout of Stonehenge mimics the solar system as a
just a "coincidence"???
Whats more amazing is that most of these theories are hardly ever looked into seriously except by those troll defenders of mainstream archaeology
around the internet.
I mean why does the mainstream try so very hard to suppress mankind's origins from us? So WHAT that mankind's civilisations could be older than just
10,000 years? Its not like its going to affect anyone!
I doubt that anyone would even care if some civilisation origins are traced back hundreds of thousands of years ago, but currently the very thought of
that is like Kryptonite to Mainstream Archaeologists.
Can anyone please explain to me whats there to hide? What are they even achieving by suppressing mankind's origins?