posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 07:55 PM
I flagged this thread a while ago, and didn't get round to watching the video until tonight.
It was definitely worth 1hr 25 minutes of 'Youtube Time', and I learned some interesting stuff. I have a moderately scientific background, but I am
a generalist. I was impressed by the way the film concentrated on establishing the scientific basis of its argument, and for a long while didn't
overhype the connivances of certain people/ groups who appeared to be 'getting in the way of the science' at various times since the site in Mexico
was first dug. There were a couple of 'cringeworthy moments' towards the end of the film where the apparent magnitude of the conspiracy appeared to
resemble the plot of an Indiana Jones movie; but then, with everything that was on the table - all the work that certain people & groups had put in to
establishing an acceptable hypothesis re: the entrance of mankind into the Americas - it would be overturned by 'the wrong dates'. It could be that
there is even more to it than that.. If Mankind was around in America 450,000 years ago, and that trashes 'the theory', then what else of the
fragile world of prehistoric archaeo-anthropological theory might be targeted for trashing..? What professional prestige would remain to protect
(largely contrived) theories based on tiny fragments of physical evidence..? And what MASSIVE evidences that are generally ignored - or fitted
roughly into the contrivances which pass for theories - might now have a moment in the Sun, to be seen for what they really are..?
A momentary aside: I have fairly good 'intuitive discernment' - by which I mean that I find it extremely easy to determine the truthfulness, or
non-truthfulness of a person speaking before me. That's not to say that I can determine the definitive statement "He/she is telling the truth/ is a
liar" with absolute clarity at all times - just that I can determine very easily when a person is, within the parameters of the very best of their
knowledge, abilities & character, being truthful - and when he/she is not being entirely truthful. It could be better expressed as the discernment of
honest intent. It is either there, or it isn't. People can have it and yet still be wrong - but it is rarer for people not to have it and yet still
be right; because its absence is usually highly indicative of an agenda. The best actors in the world cannot totally cover over an absence of honest
intent, in live scenarios, because it is something that can be sought and found by persons with sensitive 'gauges'.
The key proponent of the 'mainstream position' in the video, a guy called Michael (I forget his second name, maybe will ETA) - lacks the 'honest
intent'. His general demeanour, choice of words, choice of strategy for argument, posture, tactics of deflection & adoption of pseudo-authoritative
statements to defend his increasingly untenable position (in the face of the increasingly convincing & sophisticated physics-defined chronological
dating methods) - eventually makes his roughshod approach to 'being right' seem laughable, and shows him up to be everything that is wrong with
'establishment science'. Forcing data to fit the theory, in essence - twisting data/ baseless speculations around in loops to contrive an outside
contender for an 'alternative solution' that lends itself more readily to his pre-established theories.
Personally, I believe Mankind in all his forms, including sophisticated forerunners, has been around in a civilised capacity for a lot longer than
mainstream science concedes. The term 'antediluvian', for all the negative connotations associated with the word itself, lends itself quite nicely
to conceptions of civilisations stretching back into the mists of time... The archetypal 'golden age' of gods & men, to my mind not consisting a
truly globalised society as we have now, but rather consisting small pockets of tightly controlled societal groups widely spread and in contact with
each other - 'gods' with singularly advanced, wide-function, portable & wireless technologies, having a long-term plan, carefully controlling
interactions with primitive humans - then mysteriously 'vanishing' (though I believe some actually stayed quite close..)
A 'seed society', a colony, an experiment, an ordained task - ultimately gone awry, largely devastated by catastrophism, wiping out all but
earthquake-proof megalithic stone outposts & abandoned ziggurats buried in desert sand.
I could explain my beliefs & suggest further thoughts but there's no sense in derailing the thread, I'm a bit off-topic as it is. Someone's bound
to take offence, complaining that I have no right to even think about such vastly complex & inter-disciplinarian specialist subjects, let alone
blaspheme academia with suggestions that the hallowed establishment is basically hiding from it's own shadows.
What a scurrilous generalist I am. Shame I'll never get the clearance to find out the Truth.