reply to post by AthlonSavage
What is your opinion of this? Do you really believe the main steam ideas of how the Great pyramid was built?
Everyone has their own opinions on questions like these.
It's a complicated tangle of whether or not one trusts accuracy of the conclusions and disclosures of the scientific mainstream all of the time,
some of the time, rarely or not at all.
Add to that the certain knowledge that we nor anyone who would claim to be the mainstream have anywhere near the required answers or have discovered
nearly enough to make firm conclusions on pretty much anything, apart from the blatently obvious, but rather have only ever theory and educated
guesses, or what they consider as an evidence chain based on 'current' understandings, is likely to point to.
This boils down to we only really ever know as much as our last best honestly publicised and disseminated discovery, this is true in all realms of
Human endevour and all of science.
My opinion is that it's entirely possible our mainstream has made many wrong assumptions about many of the ancient structures and civilisations
discovered thus far, just as it's entirely possible they might have their theories almost right or absoluetly correct.
Dating monuments, studies of the peoples who built them, linear development Vs. cyclic development assumptions, levels of ancient Human intelligence,
levels of control over subject populations, could all be very wrong or not.
Personal opinion, when we as the public speculate as we are, has to come into the equation, and usually equally in personal points of view and in
mainstream circles, once a theory becomes dominant it is usually supported vigorously and sometimes ruthlessly defended, for various reasons - ego not
being last on the list i suspect.
Copernicus and others of a similar 'maverick' or challenging mainstream personality, would have known a lot about that sort of thing in their own
times, and ironically it's important to realise that without those who opposed the prevailing and believed to be correct assumptions throughout
history, modern science as it is thought of today, would probably not exist at all.
The irony is of course, that science and the percieved knowledge gleaned from the scientific methods employed that lead to current established
assumptions and prevailing theories, is most often used to dispell unconventional or antidogmatic thinking and ideas that brought about mainstream
science and the scientific method in the first place!
With the above in mind, in answer to your question, no, while i listen to and follow science with careful interest..i don't believe science has as
many answers as it tends to think and teach that it does, and in time, mavericks and visionaries will continue to challenge prevailing dogma in
similar ways to Copernicus, and will show that currently we really don't know much of anything at all, including our origins, our celestial
environment, our history and our potential, other than the obvious basics.
One poster asked about the whereabouts of ancient power sources for an ancient equivalent of a modern technology based computer?
I would answer that by asking if in his honest opinion, he is 100% sure if modern mainstream science would be honest enough to reveal and make public
discoveries that would dismantle centuries of linear prevailing theory and turn science on it's head overnight?
And if he answers no, he is not 100% sure that such shattering honesty and disclosure would be forthcoming, how then can any of us outside of the
upper echelons of the mainstream, ever be reasonably be sure such devices and associated discoveries have not already been made?
The same thinking can be applied to every aspect of mainstream dogma.
We can only make judgements on what is likely, a la Occam's razor, based on what we are exposed to and taught about...if those that are responsible
for our exposure are not being completely honest, as in a situation like the thought experiment above, our 'likely hypothesis' becomes worthless as
it would only ever be based on what the mainstream decide the dogma should be, as opposed to what the truth of the matter may actually be.
That only leaves what we know to be basic truths and that which we can see, touch, measure, analyse and theorise upon for ourselves, and this i feel
is what the OP is doing.
The more people that display creative and independent thinking, the more 'Copernicus like' figures there will be for future generations to be