Mysteries :  The Official forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board). 
Welcome! Log InRegister

No archaeological evidence regarding the the true facts our past, can be confirmed 100%! Fact!

Orthodox scientists have known this for a long time. It is the keystone of their success. A scientific theory only gains acceptance when an overwhelming acceptance is decreed by peers. The information is then documented and held as law. What the alternativist, or theorists understand, is that not all historic data is factual, or dogmatic, but very fungible. Only after platoons of clever critics, inquisitive questioning individuals, and theorists have striven to come up with refuting evidence, forcing a myriad changes and improvements, do hypotheses eventually rise from mere theories to accepted models of the world.

There are skeptics that "attack" the beliefs of the "alternative camp", and are understandably eager to defend what they consider valid theories. Employing various strategies ranging from passionate to absurd, they challenge the alternative, and try to force feed oppressive rigidity of science and embrace the notion that all things are not possible.

In constructing a case for the assertion that science arrogantly claims to be the parentheses within which is contained the set "all that exists," para-enthusiasts employ an old argument. They remind us that in the 19th century science had not yet discovered the planet Pluto. Moreover, according to skeptics and scientific materialism the planet could not yet exist until Science paid it the courtesy of discovering it and making it real. Certainly, the planet was there all along, and science merely happened upon it. Through such <i>arrogance</i> of thought, scientific materialists have made many mistakes in the past using the scientific method, rendering it <i>unreliable and untrustworthy.</i> It is also this arogance that deters intelligent openmind individuals to question the estabished, and realize that the orthodox scholars and there discples have very myopic views of ancient history, thus creating a dichotomy.

You wrote:
"I find it interesting to compare real scientists and real scientific questions with the claptrap sprouted by yourself and Bauval".

Well unless I am mistaken, I NEVER recall Mr. Hancock or Mr. Bauval claim to be scientist? Also can you please enlighten the rest of us, with what YOU, consider and define as "real scientific questions"?

The fact is that you, and others like you, appear be having a greate deal of trouble with the <i>existential</i> evidence and extremely plausable theory that Hancock and Bauval present

Your wrote:
"It really does put things on perspective because frankly the vast majority of the world's archaeologists don't
know of you and honestly don't care what you write; nor do they care for the underhand, untruthful methods employed in attempting to bring this censorship about."

I find this to utterly rediculous, and pretty childish!

The fact is, that an advanced, or serveral advanced civilizations existed (lost or not) and their common knowledge of mathematics, astronomy, engineering, agriculture, animal husbandry, craftsmanship and beliefs that Mr. Hancock and Mr. Bauval present, undisputably show this to <b>Pandemic,/b> and not <b>Esoteric</b> in antiquity.

You wrote:
"It might surprise you to know Graham that exposing the inconsistencies in your arguments is only a side hobby of mine and that you're only one part of my broader effort to help in the education of the general public in how scientists conduct their work and what the results are thereof"

What surprises me is, that you have nothing better to do with you life. Please, get one!

The arguments your referring to are clearly <b>Anomalous.</b>

The data presented is also <vb>Pervasive</b> and in now way can be <i>"coinsidence,</i> and neither you, or other traditional archaeologist can refute them, or ignore their presence.

Regarding your efforts to educate the rest of us,... huh,..... NO THANK YOU!!!

Scientific methodologism insists that all theories must be firmly based on repeatable observations that can be made under controlled conditions. The failings and limits of science cannot be overcome by sticking only to traditional methods and poor philosophy.

To be honest with you, I have read a lot of posts and threads from you, and thought you to have been an intelligent person, with some kneen insight and valid arguments. But your statements here contradict my thinking after this post.

Your your being disingenuos to the people who come to this MB, and wish to exchange information or learn someting knew, by thinking yourself to be a valid source of infromation. You can probably careless what I think, as I do to what you think, but the bottom line is, your knowledge and insight and repartee has been appreciated by myself, and would hope you can put your efforts into something more productive. We can all agree to disagree civilly, without the need to attack those simply because their view points differ from your!

Your acting merely as a "red herring" to the facts Mr. Hancock and Mr. Bauval present.

If your are representative of Ma'at, then they need new representation!



Options: ReplyQuote

Subject Views Written By Posted
Good evening, Graham ! 445 Mikey Brass 13-Nov-01 23:03
Re: Good evening, Graham ! 354 Mikey Brass 13-Nov-01 23:16
Re: Good evening, Graham ! 330 Mikey Brass 13-Nov-01 23:18
Re: Good evening, Mickey 365 Geoff 13-Nov-01 23:45
Re: Good evening, Mickey 339 Mikey Brass 14-Nov-01 00:28
Re: Good evening, Mickey 341 Mikey Brass 14-Nov-01 00:39
oooh! touchy touchy n/t 376 Geoff 14-Nov-01 00:49
Re: oooh! touchy touchy n/t 351 Mikey Brass 14-Nov-01 01:01
dont forget your ball.....:) n/t 325 Geoff 14-Nov-01 01:05
Re: Good evening, Graham ! 384 khufutut2 13-Nov-01 23:46
Re: Good evening, Graham ! 433 Mikey Brass 14-Nov-01 00:26
Re: Good evening, Graham ! 349 khufutut2 14-Nov-01 00:48
Abuse of hospitality 378 Graham Hancock 14-Nov-01 00:37
Re: Abuse of hospitality 313 Mikey Brass 14-Nov-01 00:42
Re: Abuse of hospitality 357 ISHMAEL 14-Nov-01 14:48
Re: Abuse of hospitality 328 eddie 14-Nov-01 02:35
Re: Abuse of hospitality 325 John Wall 14-Nov-01 09:14
Re: Abuse of hospitality 348 EMC 14-Nov-01 17:37
Re: Your So Rediculous Mikey! 876 eddie 14-Nov-01 02:34
Re: Good evening, Graham ! 350 Robert Bauval 14-Nov-01 07:10
Re: Good evening, Graham ! 353 John Wall 14-Nov-01 09:16
Re: Good evening, Graham ! 304 ISHMAEL 14-Nov-01 14:45
Re: Good evening, Graham ! 337 ISHMAEL 14-Nov-01 14:43
Re: Good evening, Graham ! 352 Alex Blease 14-Nov-01 17:15

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.