> Origyptian wrote:
> > 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.
Sorry, Audrey, I meant Baalbek is a game changer for me, it's changed the way I look at the ancient physical evidence. That lone megalith might have been misinterpreted for centuries as an unfinished extraction from a Roman quarry. I've been aware of the Pregnant Woman for many decades but never studied the site before the GHMB discussions. Having more recently seen the new excavations and satellite views, it's becoming very clear that the site might not at all have been simply a quarry used by the Roman Empire to build the Temple of Jupiter, but that the Romans simply repurposed a pre-existing infrastructure that was ancient even in their time.
I, too, give Von Daniken a lot of credit as a pioneer who raised the archeological consciousness of millions and inspired many of us to challenge the "accepted views" regardless of whether we actually subscribed to his hypotheses. I bought his book when it was newly published, and we brought him to my college to present his material. He certainly was gruff, but very inspiring nevertheless. He was one reason I visited Peru in '81, where I actually tracked down Maria Reich at her home in Nazca (thanks to the taxi driver!) and had a wonderful chat with her about the lines.
> 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.
There certainly are ideologues in the sciences too, not just in the humanities. The current debate about global warming is an example. I once saw a monograph written by a physician actually touting that cigarette smoking is good for you because he claimed that the tar lining the lungs protects us from environmental toxins. In my observation, ideologues in science go where the money is, not where the truth is (the cigarette monograph was funded by the tobacco industry).
I've been fortunate that all of the labs I've worked in have been extremely objective and progressive, open to all data, and eager to transform their working hypothesis as each new study is performed. They were all very well funded and never concerned about "ideology" or pressed to stick to any orthodox narrative. Ideology in science is a slippery slope since physical evidence doesn't lie, it can only be suppressed...until the next lab investigates the same thing.
But in Egyptology, we are not free to investigate. Who among us can ever hope for permission to get the definitive sample, or even a photograph, from G1's Campbell's chamber to determine if the roof truly is Tura, or take deep core mortar samples for carbon dating G1, et al. instead of being relegated to polluted surface samples (cf., the '95 study) that are likely to bias the dating to an artifactually more recent date?
Anyone who scoffs at the notion of a "lost civilzation" doesn't understand the severe degratory effects Nature has on the "evidence". The deniers will stand on the Great Pyramid and insist there is no evidence for such a "lost civilization", and yet there they are, standing right on the evidence.
We've only just started scratching the surface (remember the decree that more than 90% of ancient Egypt is still buried?). But at Baalbek, Easter Island, and Gobekli we're starting to see what's below the surface. In the Andes we're starting to realize the Incas didn't have a clue how to do that work in andesite. I look forward to the new ways the internet will help us spread more information to a broader scope of experts, and inspire us to reassess the old tenets by applying a 21st century standard of proof.
Post Edited (28-Jun-15 03:07)
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?