> I give the early explorers a LOT of credit for their life's
> hard work, but their standards of proof were extremely low and
> have been shown time and time again to not reflect what really
> happened back then despite it having been mainstream's
> "accepted view" for centuries. What we see going on at Baalbek
> is a game changer.
I'm wondering why you call Baalbek a game changer now. It has been considered a game changer by the alts since Von Daniken, who doesn't get enough credit for paving the way.
I'm not the least surprised they found more stones. What never ceases to amaze me is conventional archaeology continuing to credit the Romans for it. But that will never change. Archaeology is so entrenched in the belief that mankind hasn't been around all that long that their conclusions are biased in that direction. We all know stories of archaeologists and other academics that were banished/laughed out of their profession for presenting evidence that extended timelines way beyond the norm. We know there is controversial evidence tucked away in museum basements, and personal collections that will never see the light of day. In that respect, modern archaeologists wear longer blinders than did the antiquarians. We all think our societies are very advanced now, yet with this advancement has come a refusal to think beyond the evolution time frame. A refusal to consider there was a previous civilization that matched or surpassed our defining level of achievement.
This is the downside of modern science and its theories. It has become so dogmatic that when questioned it becomes downright vicious.