posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 01:52 PM
Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by schuyler
There is the rub...
Oftentimes it isn't "Traditional Archeologist" who stumble across a find. In the case of Göbekli Tepe it was a Shepard tending his flock who made the
discovery but it took Archeologists to investigate and validate it's age. Another example, the dead sea scrolls were found by another Shepard, this
one in search of a wayward member of his flock.
Happens all the time. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gnostic Gospels were found the same way. It's not that archaeologists have to "discover" the
original to make it valid. It's what happens afterwards that is important. Do they use the scrolls as firewood, or do they realize the importance of a
find and call in the pros? Not too long ago a bunch of farmers on a kibbutz found a 2,000 year old boat buried in the mud at the Sea of Galillee.
Fortunately they realized what they had and as a result they were able to extract this thing in one piece and preserve it.
My point being is that until there is a new discovery [Like Göbekli Tepe for example] many members of the archeological community will often
scoff at a new slightly varying theory if it doesn't quite fit into their paradigm. We have members here at ATS who demonstrate this very often. Your
reply is a prime example of how one will speak in the definitive.
I think you are being way too harsh considering the totality of my post above which clearly presented both sides.. ANY scientific endeavor tends to
work the same way with initial skepticism, and why shouldn't they? Most of these "new discoveries" turn out to be junk. Piltdown Man is a good
example. One pro bought off on it and the sensationalistic press did the rest. Meanwhile, if you read the literature of the time, every other
anthropologist involved expressed deep skepticism, which was buried in the scientific litertaure, it not being sensationalistic enough to pusue.
On the other hand, you have tectonic plate theory, which was initially met with skepticism, but now is considered scientific fact. Hugh Everett's
"Many Worlds Theory" was greeted derisively, and in the 40's physicists Gamow and Alpher discovered the background radiation from the Big Bang and
were completely ignored. A few years later they gave the Nobel Prize to the wrong guys who discovered it much later. Now, of course, Everett's "Many
Worlds" theory is seriously studied and Gamow's discovery is an integral part of modern Cosmology.
I'm right with you in dissing archaeologists for pig headedness. For example, I think Hancock's theory of "Noah's Flood" happening about 12,000 BC has
serious merit, but present that theory here and Hanslune basically will not allow a civil discussion of it. He turns any thread about it into a mess.
Why? Because Hancock is personna non gratis, therefore EVERYTHING he says must be bunk. And it's more than a studied rebuttal. It's emotionally
tainted. One wonders why all the invective? Why take this post and take the considerable time to quote each sentence independently only to make a
snarly comment on it? It doesn't make much sense and I surely do not consider it professional demeanor.
As a person in the middle I'm not willing to throw either side out, so as a half-breed I'm not accepted by either as well. I take heat from both
sides. But, you see, I don't consider each side all that different. Neither will brook any opposition. THAT'S what is wrong with this. So where are we
relegated to? ATS. ATS, where Nibiru and December 21st sit right alongside ancient civilization. Good Lord.
edit on 10/22/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)