A small piece of Egypt in Australia. Carving of an Egyptian god found in New South Wales

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Actually my "seems" aren't based on ignorance.

Lets find out!

Had you taken the time to actually understand my post you would notice im referring to mainstream sciences willfully ignoring any information that does not support the currently held view.

This can't be farther from the truth. The one and only thing that drive "mainstream" sciences forward is new discoveries.
This shouldn't really even have to be said, but to show that it "really works" would be the "productification" of said sciences have given you your computer and medicine that enables you to survive diseases that are now considered quite harmless.

The sciences have developed an attitude of "if it does not fit into the accepted version and cant be explained away, then it must be something else".

A scientifically valid theory is a scientifically valid theory if it is a scientifically valid theory.
There is "no explaining away" in science. Scientific work speaks for itself. If it doesn't, it's not scientific work - hence no scientist doesn't need to explain it away. It does a good job doing it itself.

Originally posted by Nevertheless
What are the odds that 2+ civilizations, whom never had any contact with each other according to the currently accepted theory, developed the same?
* - Mathematics

Easy. If a civilization is intelligent and puts effort into exploring the wonderful world of logic, they will eventually discover the same things. When it comes to mathematics, arithmetic and simple geometry will naturally be the same. How could it not?

* - Design, size and layout.

We're about the same size as species, so our reference frames when it comes to dimensions are about the same. Adding to that, there are also practical limitations that can or cannot be shared among these two civilizations - which is a critical part whether or not they would choose the same path or not.

You are free to do problem-solving experiments and see how many intelligent beings decide to solve the same problem the same way.
Try then adding different kinds of restrictions and see what happens.

* - Celestial Observation

Celestial observation was very important, and it probably was fascinating too [and still is!]. Why would intelligent civilizations NOT observe the magnificent sky?

* - Orion's belt layout

Are you referring to the layout of pyramids being the same as Orion's Belt?
I'm sorry, but at least pyramids in Egypt are not layout like that. It's close enough to resemble it, though.

The layout of the Giza pyramid complex in Egypt can also be seen in the Teotihuacán pyramid complex. The layout was not a technological discovery. What are the odds that 2 different civilizations will use the almost exact same layout design?

What are the odds that 2 random civilizations have any buildings in any spot aligned almost exactly the same way?
What are the odds that 2 random civilizations have any tools that look almost exactly the same way?
What are the odds that 2 random civilizations have the war strategies that almost exactly the same?

We have Islam to thank for advanced mathematics...

No we don't. We have curiousity to thank for advanced mathematics.
We have religions to "thank" that we were allowed to do innocent stuff.

Who do the Mayans / new world cultures have for their advancement?

Curiosity?

Dismissing - No
Questioning and skeptical - Yes

You questioning and being skeptical on the "mainstream sciences" does unfortunately show some ignorance in how science works.

Besides, science seems to be doing exactly what you are accusing me of doing. When information comes to light that challenges the facts it should be researched. Instead its ignored.

No it doesn't. I hope I explained above how science embraces anything that helps it.

If a discovery is made that challenges current thinking, and is "dismissed" instead of being explored, one has to ask the question why.

What exactly has been challenged and what has been dismissed?

Why is it so bad to constantly review and update our history?

It isn't. We do it all the time!

Why is it bad to explore the possibilities of an ancient global civilization?

Speculating is not science. You are welcome to show it when it's actually science.

Why is it wrong to explore the theory of the Sphinx.

I have no idea what that is. Sorry. I assume it's not science if you think it's "wrong to explore".

The quest is to research our history, to know where we came from and move forward from there. In these cases the sciences seem to be going out of their way to make sure we don't explore / know our history.

Science does not.

reply to post by daaskapital


It's a pdf file without an extension. strange.

But I'd be far more inclined to believe it's the work of a modern guy than evidence that egyptians came here, drew a picture and left.

Originally posted by daaskapital
What, just because a ranger says some old dude was carving # into the sandstone, you're just going to believe the glyphs to be a hoax?

Yay, another logic denier!

Lets see, on the one hand you have a carving on a cave wall that looks a lot like those seen in Egypt, and people make the immediate conclusion that this means there HAS to be some ancient link between the two.

Then, on the other hand, you have traceable facts, identities, actual people with actual quoted statements about this being the work of a man who had seen these depiction in Egypt and felt compelled to recreate it back home...

And you think people should accept the most unlikely of the two, the one with least evidence and least reason?

This is not conspiracy, this is fantasy. If you would prefer to believe the most implausible and unlikely version, while refuting the version with actual evidence and facts to back it up, then you really have no place criticizing others on what they believe

Originally posted by Nevertheless
This can't be farther from the truth. The one and only thing that drive "mainstream" sciences forward is new discoveries.
This shouldn't really even have to be said, but to show that it "really works" would be the "productification" of said sciences have given you your computer and medicine that enables you to survive diseases that are now considered quite harmless.

The discovery of medication is nowhere near the realm of the discovery of ancient civilization artifacts in areas they should not be found in because of current doctrine on Earth Human history.. Stop trying to compare apples to Zebras. In this case main stream science has been saying the discoveries that suggest a world civilization do not exist, even when information keeps coming to light that says otherwise.

Originally posted by Nevertheless
A scientifically valid theory is a scientifically valid theory if it is a scientifically valid theory.
There is "no explaining away" in science. Scientific work speaks for itself. If it doesn't, it's not scientific work - hence no scientist doesn't need to explain it away. It does a good job doing it itself.

A Scientifically valid theory should be explored then instead of ignoring it.

As an example of main stream science ignoring information that doesn't support their neat little world all we need to do is look at Christopher Columbus. He was not the first person to discover America, yet here we are, still teaching that while science ignores the evidence.

How about the remains of 2 ancient cities in India / Pakistan that show all the signs of a nuclear explosion, right down to the radiation? How about the Baghdad Batteries? Since science cant seem to find a way to explain it away, they belittle it and ignore it.

Originally posted by Nevertheless
Easy. If a civilization is intelligent and puts effort into exploring the wonderful world of logic, they will eventually discover the same things. When it comes to mathematics, arithmetic and simple geometry will naturally be the same. How could it not?

Possibly but not in the same manner or method. What was the catalyst? Necessity is the mother of invention. Also, if we use your logic then please explain why Europeans were more advanced than Native Americans when they landed in the new world?

If both cultures were exploring the wonderful world of logic, then what happened to create such a disparity in technology?

Originally posted by Nevertheless
We're about the same size as species, so our reference frames when it comes to dimensions are about the same. Adding to that, there are also practical limitations that can or cannot be shared among these two civilizations - which is a critical part whether or not they would choose the same path or not.

For the Mayan and Egyptian cultures to have developed (technology) almost in an identical manner brings us back to the science is ignoring evidence they cant explain away.

I do not buy into the version of history where civilizations were landlocked. There is a lot of evidence showing there was a world civilization.

The odds of 2 cultures, separated by oceans, of developing the same technology as if they exchanged blue prints, cannot be ignored. The layout of the 2 Pyramid complexes served no technological purpose, yet they are almost identical.

That is not coincidental.

Originally posted by Nevertheless
You are free to do problem-solving experiments and see how many intelligent beings decide to solve the same problem the same way.
Try then adding different kinds of restrictions and see what happens.

Since the complex layouts are not based on a required building code, can you explain why they are almost replicas of each other? For 2 cultures who never had any contact with each other to build something and lay it out in an identical manner needs to be researched and explained.

However main stream science does not seem interested in opening that box.

You can have 10 civilizations who never met come up with the same idea - say building a "house". 4 walls and a roof.. Those 10 cultures will all come to the 4 walls and a roof conclusion however the manner in which the house is constructed will be different.

*Material used
*Construction method
*Construction site

Of those civilizations, you will find the common principle however those principles are applied in different manners. In the case of the Pyramids, design, layout, construction, purpose, celestial alignment - all are in the same book of both civilizations. That moves us into the realm of shared contact / trade with each other.

Something main stream science says is impossible.

Originally posted by Nevertheless
Celestial observation was very important, and it probably was fascinating too [and still is!]. Why would intelligent civilizations NOT observe the magnificent sky?

Its one thing to look up in amazement and awe... Its something else entirely for 2 cultures who had no contact to use the same constellations in the same manner. We are, again, moving beyond the realm of coincidence into something more.

Originally posted by Nevertheless
Are you referring to the layout of pyramids being the same as Orion's Belt?
I'm sorry, but at least pyramids in Egypt are not layout like that. It's close enough to resemble it, though.

The Pyramids at Giza and the Pyramids at Teothicaun are laid out the same.

Comparison of both


Orion's belt

Originally posted by Nevertheless
What are the odds that 2 random civilizations have any buildings in any spot aligned almost exactly the same way?

Since we are dealing with massive stones and a major effort to construct these things I would say having an almost exact alignment a continent away is more than coincidence or dumb luck.

Originally posted by Nevertheless
No we don't. We have curiousity to thank for advanced mathematics.

No, really, we have Islam to thank for advanced mathematics. Or are you trying to demonstrate how a person will ignore a fact they don't agree with, even when the evidence says otherwise?

Originally posted by Nevertheless
Curiosity?

Doubtful... So they were curious and decided to build pyramids?
Necessity? Based on what need?
Original concept or borrowed from half a world away?

Originally posted by Nevertheless
You questioning and being skeptical on the "mainstream sciences" does unfortunately show some ignorance in how science works.

You questioning and being skeptical on "Islam and mathematics" does unfortunately show some ignorance in how science and mathematics work.

Since you have been consistently missing the point, let me try this. Main stream science will ignore discoveries that will fundamentally alter the view of our human history.

Why?
Ego?
Notoriety?
Fame?
or knowing that money may very well dry up in research areas where those fundamental questions have been answered.

Originally posted by Nevertheless
No it doesn't. I hope I explained above how science embraces anything that helps it.

A gun does not kill people, the person pulling the trigger does. Science, just like a gun or car or drugs, can be abused by the person using it.

As is the case when main stream scientists use science as the hammer in one big game of whak-a-mole. Every time a discovery is made that goes against the established school of thought, it gets whacked back down out of public view.

Originally posted by Nevertheless
Speculating is not science. You are welcome to show it when it's actually science.

O.o ...... errrm ok..

spec·u·la·tion (spky-lshn)
n.

1.
a. Contemplation or consideration of a subject; meditation.
b. A conclusion, opinion, or theory reached by conjecture.
c. Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition.

sci·ence
[sahy-uhns] Show IPA

noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.

4. systematized knowledge in general.

5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

All scientific endeavors start with the simple phrase - I do not know.

When Main stream science does not know yet pretends it does its a problem.

Originally posted by Nevertheless
I have no idea what that is. Sorry. I assume it's not science if you think it's "wrong to explore".

Im not saying its wrong to explore.. I am saying main stream science thinks its wrong to explore. Why? Because it would undermine the established history.

The theory forwarded is that the Sphinx is a lot older than the Pyramids. There is weathering on the Sphinx that suggests the Sphinx was present when the climate in that part of Africa was more wet and green (about 12k BC +/-)

Here is a link for some basic background info -
Sphinx Water Erosion Theory

Main stream science response -

The Sphinx water erosion hypothesis contends the main type of weathering evident on the enclosure walls of the Great Sphinx was caused by prolonged and extensive rainfall[1] that would have predated the time of Djedefre and Khafre, the Pharaohs modern Egyptologists at large credit with building the Great Sphinx and Second Pyramid at Giza circa 2500 BC.[2] Egyptologists have rejected the water erosion hypothesis and the idea of an older Sphinx offering various alternative explanations for the cause and date of the erosion.

Why the response?

its not because of Science... More like Politics and ego. If the Sphinx were older than the Pyramids then the Egyptians could not have built them.

Egyptians are very proud of their history and have every right to be. However, when pride gets in the way and science is used as a means to inhibit progress, there is a problem.

To bring this back around to the OP topic...

To the OP - my apologies - the thread hijack was not intentional.


@ Nevertheless
While I have enjoyed debating with you, and you bring up some very interesting points, maybe we should return the thread back to the topic. If you do respond to my posts that's cool (and I look forward to reading the response if you do) however I will refrain from giving my response.

if you wish we can always create our own thread and move this side debate over to there.

This is an old story long ago debunked as someone carving these symbols in recent times (last 80 years).
Man, check the internet thoroughly before putting up such easily debunked rubbish.

Yeah well. You are perfect I suppose? A site like this survives on both the crappy and the good. When can we expect your excellent thread then?

reply to post by Rocker2013


Not only that my friend, but we have evidence of Aboriginal contact with several different groups of people from our Northern Neighbours, including Indonesians, Papua New Guineans, Malaysians, Indians and even the Chinese. Some of which were well before the Nile was even settled by Egyptians.

So we have all this evidence, words from these other worlds finding their way into Aboriginal language, bark paintings and rock paintings, into their culture and yet...no sign of their supposed Egyptian visitors?

The only conceivable way Egyptians could have come to Australia is through China, it is possible I suppose, as they traded with the Chinese, but there is no evidence to support it.

Are we really meant to believe that they travelled all the way through China, across the Torres Strait to get to Northern Australia and then instead of carving rocks there, they trekked all the way to the east coast to carve a few rocks?

Let's not forget that there is a huge mountain range in the way either.

They didn't have the ships to do it, so as romantic as it sounds to say "Ancient Egyptians came to Australia" it's really just a fantasy.

Originally posted by signalfire
That translation was pretty detailed of an expedition gone badly and their leader dying including descriptions of funeral services, and historical references. If it's a hoax carved by an Aussie soldier, he would have had to have done extensive self-education in hieroglyphs and Ancient Egyptian history, not an easy task. I see no reason why the Egyptians couldn't have ended up in Australia, the Phoenicians certainly had conquered the seas by then (time frames?)

Where is the proof again that this is a hoax? Cuz that video clip was proof of nothing.

Thanks for posting this OP, fascinating!

True until proven a hoax?

And any such proof is dismissed in favor of your unsubstantiated assertions?

The onus is on the claimant.


BTW - I've never even been to Egypt and I made a tablet with such carvings and hieroglyphs for a friend's birthday. Didn't even require Alien help.

Originally posted by MadMax7
This is an old story long ago debunked as someone carving these symbols in recent times (last 80 years).

Man, check the internet thoroughly before putting up such easily debunked rubbish.

A bit harsh.

First I'd heard of it.




Guess what just came out on Blu Ray Yesterday?

reply to post by Rocker2013

reply to post by AlphaHawk




Ancient African Coins Found In Australia Could Rewrite History; Team Seeks 1,000-Year-Old Evidence

......................"There is strong evidence that Australia was part of a broad trading network," that at one point included southern Africa, India, China and the Spice Islands, McIntosh told The Huffington Post. "To what extent we have no idea, but we have to find out."..........................

Originally posted by Xcathdra
The discovery of medication is nowhere near the realm of the discovery of ancient civilization artifacts in areas they should not be found in

The one and only problem with the above statement is that it is a claim, not a fact.

because of current doctrine on Earth Human history..

...that is not based on claims, but scientific work.

Stop trying to compare apples to Zebras.

You were the one who attacked "mainstream sciences and I were simply giving you real physical evidence of its' success. It does not rely on speculation. The whole reason it works is exactly because of that.

In this case main stream science has been saying the discoveries that suggest a world civilization do not exist,

Yes, because such things have not been observed.

even when information keeps coming to light that says otherwise.

There is no such information.

A Scientifically valid theory should be explored then instead of ignoring it.

Agreed.

[..] look at Christopher Columbus. He was not the first person to discover America, yet here we are, still teaching that while science ignores the evidence.

Christopher Columbus was not the first European to visit America. I have no idea why you claim "science" to state this incorrectness. You cannot blame science for you not knowing what science thinks of Christopher Columbus. I'm sorry, but this is exactly what i mean by the ignorance.

How about the remains of 2 ancient cities in India / Pakistan that show all the signs of a nuclear explosion

No. There are not "all the signs of a nuclear explosion" happening in and during that ancient period.

How about the Baghdad Batteries? Since science cant seem to find a way to explain it away, they belittle it and ignore it.

What about the Baghdad Batteries? And what do you mean "can't seem to find a way to explain it away"?
Please explain your problem with "mainstream" science and the Baghdad Batteries?
And please explain what you have to say about the Baghdad Batteries.

Originally posted by Nevertheless
Easy. If a civilization is intelligent and puts effort into exploring the wonderful world of logic, they will eventually discover the same things. When it comes to mathematics, arithmetic and simple geometry will naturally be the same. How could it not?

Possibly but not in the same manner or method.

Please explain the differences in the manner and methods, if any. And also, why these manners and methods cannot differ?

What was the catalyst?

The same as always?

Also, if we use your logic then please explain why Europeans were more advanced than Native Americans when they landed in the new world?

Are you asking me to explain why a civilization with a long history of schooling in sciences knew more about sciences than tribes that didn't?

If both cultures were exploring the wonderful world of logic, then what happened to create such a disparity in technology?

Apparently they didn't, or hadn't gotten very far. Previously, we were comparing two civilizations that actually had reached similar levels of technology.

I do not buy into the version of history where civilizations were landlocked.

No one is saying that? Or, well, of course some civilizations were if they hadn't figured out how not to be.

There is a lot of evidence showing there was a world civilization.

No there isn't.

The odds of 2 cultures, separated by oceans, of developing the same technology as if they exchanged blue prints, cannot be ignored. The layout of the 2 Pyramid complexes served no technological purpose, yet they are almost identical.

Almost identical as in being pyramids? A pyramid is a pyramid?

Isn't there a story about glyphs, very similar to AE glyphs and symbols, being discovered in caves in or near to the Grand Canyon, USA?

Add that with WORLDWIDE pyramid building, and the clues for the very real existence of a previous Global civilisation, now of course only hints and whispers of it's former glory, mount considerably.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Thank you for posting that link my friend, it backs up what I was saying about northern Australia being visited by many cultures over the years, with sufficient evidence, I'm unsure though, how does this prove ancient Egyptians came here?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
You can have 10 civilizations who never met come up with the same idea - say building a "house". 4 walls and a roof.. Those 10 cultures will all come to the 4 walls and a roof conclusion

Not at all. It depends on the material at hand and where you are.
Roundhouses is another popular choice.

But you'll usually end up with 4 walls and a roof. The same way you'd end up with pyramids if your construction material is stone and you want to build something enormous.

however the manner in which the house is constructed will be different.

Of those civilizations, you will find the common principle however those principles are applied in different manners. In the case of the Pyramids, design,

Design of pyramids? As in pyramids being pyra..midical?

layout,

In terms of?

construction

How vastly different do you construct pyramids? And how "too similar" were these, do you mean?

, purpose,

The purposes of these particular two civilizations were vastly different.
HOWEVER, there are pretty much only two reasons to build such crazy things, so it wouldn't be strange if pyramids were used for the same thing. Obviously.

celestial alignment - all are in the same book of both civilizations. That moves us into the realm of shared contact / trade with each other.

Not only does the Egyptian pyramids anything to do with celestial alignment, the knowledge of "Orion" came long after the pyramids were built.

Something main stream science says is impossible.

Indeed.

Originally posted by MysterX
Isn't there a story about glyphs, very similar to AE glyphs and symbols, being discovered in caves in or near to the Grand Canyon, USA?

Add that with WORLDWIDE pyramid building, and the clues for the very real existence of a previous Global civilisation, now of course only hints and whispers of it's former glory, mount considerably.

Since when do unsuppported stories prove anything? No one can prove anything about the grandcanyon beyond the claim.


Uh you do realize that the pyramids were built at different times right? The Egyptian pyramids were build nearily 2000 thousand years before the ones in Mexico and south America?
How can you believe such a thing?
I haven't even pointed out that pyramids in different places were used for different things, Egyptians used them for tombs, the Aztecs for alters for sacrifice and the sumerians to house thr gods.

How could it be global? No culture does that

reply to post by qmantoo


No ETs please.
People traveled the world since before time warps.
barry fell BC travel

BC Egyptian influence in Australia is quite possible.
Not now thank God, hey what.
And also in an unpublished manuscript by Lyne
you have Egypt out west in America.

Preparing for publication my book on an Egyptian-sponsored Minoan, Cycladic and Libyan colony in New Mexico, ca. 1626 B.C., involving over 30 years research.

Perhaps he beat the official folks to the discovery.
Not that official science speakers might be held back but I think they
will discover more out west than Egyptians or ETs for that matter.
Due to secret bases out west US, looking around is not wanted but what about
Australia there has to be secret UFO ET bases there as well.
Well it just so happened Lyne may have found at least a landing area no such
luck on secret base like Walton. Imagine now with 4G cell phones in a secret
base. Wow.

reply to post by LeLeu


I think these pictures summed it up. Aussie soldiers fascinated with the (pre) Egyptian culture; coming home and playing a game of mason.

The history of mankind is unknown on to humanity - most of what is written, it done so by liars, profiters, deceivers or mis tranlators.. if only one day we could have the complete truth - timeline of human's history. As well as history on this planet; prior to the dinos.

The types of civilzations, beings, cultures, species of creatures that once existed here is al up toòan individual imagination.

History...

Originally posted by MadMax7
This is an old story long ago debunked as someone carving these symbols in recent times (last 80 years).

Man, check the internet thoroughly before putting up such easily debunked rubbish.

Wow a busy guy did this...lot of time on his hands.

There can be seen. Least 250 hieroglyphs

reply to post by Xcathdra

How about the Baghdad Batteries?

Why not look them up, you can recreate them yourself quite easily.

Since science cant seem to find a way to explain it away, they belittle it and ignore it.

But science has, maybe you have not come across it yet or you have and it doesn't fit your paradigm.

Originally posted by demongoat

Originally posted by MysterX
Isn't there a story about glyphs, very similar to AE glyphs and symbols, being discovered in caves in or near to the Grand Canyon, USA?

Add that with WORLDWIDE pyramid building, and the clues for the very real existence of a previous Global civilisation, now of course only hints and whispers of it's former glory, mount considerably.

Since when do unsuppported stories prove anything? No one can prove anything about the grandcanyon beyond the claim.


Uh you do realize that the pyramids were built at different times right? The Egyptian pyramids were build nearily 2000 thousand years before the ones in Mexico and south America?
How can you believe such a thing?
I haven't even pointed out that pyramids in different places were used for different things, Egyptians used them for tombs, the Aztecs for alters for sacrifice and the sumerians to house thr gods.

How could it be global? No culture does that

Proof, i seem to distinctly remember using the word 'clues'...not proof. If i had proof of such a thing, do you imagine i would be hanging around here talking about clues with you?

No mate, i'd be publishing my material proof and enjoying my new status as a member of the Royal Society or some such!

And yes, i realise what mainstream science has to say on the subject, and i happen to disagree with much, not all, but much of what it has to say on many subjects, including it's theory of a linear progression of pyramid building and culture around the world, which i'm highly sceptical about.

Dating stone structures is notoriously difficult, and relies mainly on other organic finds in or around or underneath the structure to arrive at an approximate date.

This technique, although beneficial overall, can also lead to complacency and error in dating structures such as the Egyptian or S. American monuments (among others)...scientists and researchers continually argue among themselves over the dates of certain monuments too, so it's certainly not as cut and dried as saying something glib like; You realise the date for this is such and such and the date for that is so and so, with nothing more to go on than disputed theories given out by science or alternative science.

It's all in flux and that means It's far deeper than that.

But, most people will live out the full measure of their lives and never, not even once consider anything remotely approaching an opinion on any of the worlds historical monuments, mainstream or otherwise...so really, it's good that you do have an opinion, even if it is simply parroting what mainstream science says and put across in a rather condescending way. (i have a very thick skin, so don't worry, i'm not offended)

Bottom line is, you're ignoring the fact that with the possible exception of Antarctica, and possibly Australia (both are absolutely gigantic landmasses, and essentially still largely unexplored, so they too probably have ancient structures and pyramids) every continent on Earth has had Pyramid building civilisations, and this gives clues (there's that word again) of and alludes to a commonality of purpose for such enigmatic structures...at least, it does in some of our minds.

I accept you're convinced by official dogma of our history, and i'm absolutely cool with that despite not agreeing with it...try to extend the same courtesy to others if they happen to have the cheek to disagree with you eh?

We're speculating here, not offering proof of anything, except 'clues' discovered and interpreted in alternative ways, personal belief and gut instinct...others may offer what they consider to be proof, but i do not...i take a more agnostic approach and believe neither 'side', mainstream or alternative, have fully proven either position.

It's a good stance to take IMO, as it allows an unconstrained thought process and willingness and mental freedom with which to look at other possibilities without dogmatic spectacles blinding us to alternative realities, if that indeed is the case.

Cheers.