It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why does the mainstream violently suppress mankind's origins? Whats there to hide?

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
If our species is really that old then that kind of messes up the whole theory on the evolution of man does it not?? also maybe the scientists just dont want to look like idiots and tell the world they screwed up...




posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   
What the hell?

It is generally accepted by most scholars in this field that agricultural civilisations have been around since at least 10,000BC, and most likely even before that.

The reason that archeologists make no mention of civilisations existing, um, "hundreds of thousands" of years ago is for one damn good reason: NO EVIDENCE. If evidence of civilisations existing, say, 20,000 years BC were to be discovered, it'd be all over the news.

It is sheer idiocy to claim "conspiracy" over the lack of evidence supporting even older traces of civilisation. No-one is hiding anything. It is simply that nothing has been found. Archeology has its limits.

Also, I take it you mean "civilisation" to refer to large organised, permanent societies with economic structure and centralised political governance, is that correct? Obviously, communities of people have existed much longer than this.

Edit: Forgot to mention this. The main factor working against archeological discovery is the degradation of human made artifacts. Also, the only things that can be discovered is what happens to be lying pretty much on the ground's surface. Earthquakes, floods and volcanic eruptions make short work of archeological remains. When I was at university I studied a bit of paleontology, and know just how easy it is for things to get lost over time. Therefore, even if there were advanced civilisations many tens of thousands of years ago, what the chances that anyone would be able to find their remains in the present day? Not very good I can tell you that.

Also funding. Archeologists need funding to carry out exploratory research, and that is becoming very hard to come by in this field. It is an important field of academic research that is sadly underfunded. So that, combined with the capriciousness of our natural environment, make the outlook rather bleak for any mind blowing archeological discoveries.
edit on 27-7-2011 by DeepThoughtCriminal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by davesmart
hi op
there was athread several weeks ago
cant remember what it was called
but the remains of a human was found in a coal mine
coal takes at least 250,000 yrs to form
were lied to left right and center
dave


I had a look for that thread and found it. What I did not find was a reliable source providing good evidence to support the claim of human remains. You claim that we are being lied to, yet so many people will believe the first thing they hear in "alternative" or sensationalist news - or even mainstream news.

Who exactly is allegedly lying to us?

Why would 'they' lie to us?

As I said in my other post, there are no lies here. Just lack of evidence to support the theory of ancient civilisations... or modern humans preserved in coal. (Assuming for a moment that such a ludicrous story were true, would it actually be an homo sapiens?) Modern humans were believed to have emerged approximately 200,000 years ago. Anyone who has any understanding at all of the scientific method will know that the whole thing about science is that anyone is welcome to prove existing theories wrong..... provided they can support their claims with genuine evidence.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by DeepThoughtCriminal
 
The thing is, a lot of people think that academia is corrupt, along with politics and media, so just repeating the the almost universally accepted official story is a waste of time. Ultimately, everything is a faith based belief and obviously your faith in the integrity of academia is very strong; strong enough to evoke somewhat aggressive debating means.

Without knowing who funds and who executes the inforamation gathering, some people might not be willing to whole-heartedly jump on board with the official story. A website like ATS would quite likely to be frequented by such people.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Robert Reynolds
 


Au contraire, I do not have absolute faith in academia. I'm aware that corruption and academic dishonesty does occur, however my question is to why it would happen in regards to the topic of human civilisation. What motive would someone have to hide facts in this situation? I know that in the field of say, medical research, a scientist may be corrupted by bribery to exaggerate the effects of a medicinal substance, for example. But what would cause such motivation in this case?

You have put words into my mouth that I never would speak. I do not automatically accept mainstream consensus as being unshakable fact, not by any means. If you want to respond me, please focus on my underlying question and my reasoning behind putting forth that query.

My question is: what grounds does anyone have to believe that information relating to archeological research of ancient human civilisation is being covered up? I work as a scientific researcher and know how the whole process of research happens. I also happen to have an uncle who is a well known archeologist, so I have had some exposure to archeological research, and the process is very similar to any field of science. It is funded by government grants, universities, and in some rare cases, individuals. The researchers must publish verifiable results which are peer reviewed by others who have worked in the same field. If anyone has any doubts about a particular paper, then it is not difficult to investigate the authors, the reviewers, the journal and its editors, as well as whoeever funded the research, so the question of "who" is behind it is not hard to answer at all.

You seem critical that I put more faith in the academic community than I do with anonymous posters on the internet with no sources to back up their claims of a conspiracy. I would suggest that it's not good a idea to jump on the bandwagon of any idea, without first knowing what you're talking about it, and that includes the badwaggon of half baked conspiracy theories. Some people are determined to see corruption in anything and everything. But sometimes, there actually isn't some shady conspiracy behind something and it does just so happen that no evidence supporting the conspiracy has actually been found.

So before you patronise me and twist my words, perhaps you would be wise to examine your own tendency to follow the herd. And yet, you still did not provide any response whatsoever in regards to my questions. No wonder I don't support this theory. Be rational, look at the facts, and don't jump to conclusions. That's what I do, and that's why I don't adhere to anything with unbreakable and blind faith.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by CasiusIgnoranze
reply to post by OuttaTime
 


What?! I thought Science was not supposed to consider religious bias!


It's the mainstream academics who are stuck in their oven baked theories, and they don't make it outside the box very often



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by DeepThoughtCriminal
 
I'm sure you can find many claims of supressed archaeology if you decided to look into it, but I dare say that those claims wouldn't satisfy you.

For someone that seems so sure of their knowledge in this subject, why woud you feel the need to open a post with 'what the hell?' It's a little bit narky isn't it?

Why would they supress our true history? Maybe if we knew our origins we might be able to deduce our destiny; maybe things that would be considered impossible by contemporary understandings, would be discovered that might undermine the powerbase of the rulers.

Our reality is far weirder than anything we are being told about through any 'official channels'. I might not be able to convince you of that fact, but it is a fact.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by CasiusIgnoranze
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?


I have wonder the same things myself. There is sooooo much overwhelming evidence suggesting that we as a species have been around alot longer then we think. And when I say been around longer I mean on roughly the same level of knowledge we have aquired today, more or less.

So I think it comes down to this. Look at how most people all over the world believe the mainstream theory of mankind's origins. Alot of it is, and always has been, pushed by the major religions and of course flawed science.
If you had rock solid evidence showing that there were advanced human civilizations that existed 20 000+ years ago that would practically destroy this all ready fragile world we live in today.

I also think its a clear threat to those in power. These elites would lose their fictious power and control if humanity learned of such things. This truth would have all of us questioning pretty much everything that we eastablished as historical fact. Religion would lose a huge chunk of followers.

Now think of this. What happened to these ancient civilizations? How did these peoples come to an end? How far did they really make it before disappearing? Are these ancient peoples perhaps connected to say something even greater? Why would they build massive monuments aligned to the stars of a particular moment in history? Has to be more then just to say "I WAS HERE" and nothing more. These questions might help outline the importance of why this is buried by the MSM.

People for the most part, excluding everyone on these types of websites are far from ready to have their eyes and minds opened to truths.

Maybe thats why theres global unrest on every front. Maybe thats why people are more miserable, scared and apathetic. This current man made world isn't allowing us to expand our minds and spirits. We're out-growing this play-pen, causing most of us to search for more answers. Its like a child's discovery that santa clause isn't real, thus making christmas obsolete. This world is obsolete along with the masters, but the masters can't have that and will do anything to maintain their hold.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by DeepThoughtCriminal
 





Just lack of evidence to support the theory of ancient civilisations


What about those man made structures deep under the sea...



This is part 1 of 6,documentary



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   
I thought china was the oldest civilization. "empire" at the very least



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   
To answer the OP's question in a nutshell:

It would mean smashing the fragile and much beloved delicate epic story about how Adam magically came from a pile of dirt and Eve magically came from Adam's rib.

... and that would mean putting many multi-billion dollar businesses religions out of a job.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by CasiusIgnoranze
 




Explain to me just how the layout of Stonehenge mimics the solar system as a just a "coincidence"???


Explain to me how Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon matches up almost perfectly with Wizard of Oz, wait no, that one actually is coincidental. For the sake of argument I'll accept that it's not a coincidence that these sites line up with the stars. If that's the case - WHAT'S YOUR POINT?




I mean why does the mainstream try so very hard to suppress mankind's origins from us?




Thus far you've established that mainstream archeologists think the alignments of ancient monuments with the stars does not suggest that the ancient cultures who built such monuments were in communication with each other. Or, if that's not it, that mainstream archeologists claim the alignments themselves are mere coincidence. I fail to see how mainstream archeology having doubts about a hypothesis is suppression of our origins. What in the hell does them being aligned with the stars have to do with where our species came from? How does the ancient's having an obsession with celestial bodies correlate at all with the actual hard evidence of our how species evolved?



Can anyone please explain to me whats there to hide? What are they even achieving by suppressing mankind's origins?


Can you explain to me what there is to hide? Because to me it looks like they're doing the best job they can to get to the bottom of things, without buying into doubtful hypotheses or pseudoscience.

Archeologists don't suggest that civilization just emerged out of the blue in 3,000 BC. In fact here's an early culture that borders on civilization, including having agriculture, an economy and art and being sedentary all by around 10000 BC. Natufian Culture




top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join