February 24, 2014


By now, some readers get it-- that we live in an age of rampant deception and denial. But many still cling to the belief that altho the world is going to hell in a hand-basket, at least science looks for, and sustains, truth. Nothing could be farther from the truth, in fact.

Since the term science embraces a multitude of sins, I just want to consider the field of archeology, which some might challenge as even deserving of the title, but which claims to uncover mankind's development, from origins to the present. Most of what they tell us, I am convinced, is pure bunkum-- speculation decorated with academic grandiloquence.

One thing we know (within reasonable margins of fuzziness) is that sometime around 4000 years BC, what we call civilization sprang up in the area of Mesopotamia, very suddenly in historic terms. This seems to be one thing archeologists agree on; and it also puzzles them greatly. Nonetheless, they sweep this anomaly under the carpet, and proceed to speculate on how those 'cave-men' managed to build cities that amaze us even today. We know this fact of the rapid appearance of civilization because, among their achievements, they had writing, and kept records. Fortunately, they kept those records on very durable media-- baked clay tablets, that retain the impressed characters for far longer than most media.

We, the public, are expected to believe that after tens of thousands of years of living as 'hunter-gatherers,' humans suddenly got this notion to settle down and live in cities. Those cities were not just collections of mud huts; far from it. They included the construction of huge pyramids built from precisely-cut stone blocks, often transported from quarries located many kilometers from the final site. One recent BBC documentary (on Caral, Peru) made the astonishing statement that "Pyramids marked the beginning of civilization."
Seriously? In a mere few hundred years, those new urban dwellers figured out how to quarry massive stone blocks, move them over rivers and valleys and deserts, and then place them together with an accuracy that is amazing, all without any indication of the technology we'd need today to duplicate their feats! Yes, the archeologists want us to believe that homo sapiens went from caves and stone tools to mathematics and giant pyramids almost overnight in relative terms. Their assertions are patently ludicrous, defying common sense!

Another annoying problem is that archeologists keep finding new sites with that strange hallmark of early civilization-- pyramids. And they all seem to have emerged in about the same era. The recently discovered city of Caral, in Peru, is possibly the oldest city on Earth, predating the Egyptian, according to that BBC video. Other ancient cities have been un-earthed in Serbia, in China, in India, and elsewhere. So now we're supposed to believe that primitive humans, in widely scattered parts of the globe, simultaneously got the idea to create cities, and to build (of all things) pyramids in them!

The reason they want so desperately for us to believe this clap-trap is because there's another hypothesis that makes far more sense... but which is anathema to the (closed) scientific mind. This alternative theory is that the megalithic structures of antiquity were built by extra-terrestrial visitors to Earth. It was they who gave early humans the knowledge that characterizes civilization-- writing, mathematics, music, laws, education, and so on.

This is the only theory that makes sense... and for which there is an abundance of evidence, by the way. That evidence is completely dismissed by the academic egg-heads, and so the sycophantic press treat it similarly, as merely curious at best. Since no academic could hope to promote this heresy, it falls on those without the accepted credentials to do the investigation and present the reports to the public. Among those who have done so are people like Eric von Daniken (author, Chariots of the Gods), and Zecharia Sitchen (The Twelfth Planet, and many more).

By not accepting the clearly more likely and more sensible explanation, archeologists are left scrambling to come up with a variety of hypotheses to attempt to account for logical problems with their insistence that humanity pulled itself up by the boot-straps. Any decent economist could point out that to build the pyramids of Egypt with primitive tools would have taken a huge population of dedicated workers and support functions, working over a very long period... something simply not upheld by the evidence.

Furthermore, the archeologists time scales become completely skewed by their dogmatism. They proclaim that the pyramids of Giza date to about 2,500 BC. Yet the nearby Sphinx has been dated to about 10,000 BC by many analysts! What are we expected to believe, then?

Those pyramids have been described by the professionals as burial crypts for the pharaohs, even calling the largest one the 'Pyramid of Cheops,' a pharaoh who lived at about the 'right time' for their theories. Yet there is no evidence to support this theory. No tomb has ever been found in the pyramids, nor any hieroglyphs dedicated to these pharaohs-- who were otherwise not noted for modesty.

It must be made clear that there are more than pyramids (or ziggurats) left behind by the extra-terrestrial builders. To take a notable example, there's the 'cyclopean' platform near Baalbeck, Lebanon, constructed from giant limestone blocks, squarely hewed, and some weighing over 1,000 tons! It measures about 90 meters by 60 m. and the top layer of blocks are about 10 m. above grade. Archeology essentially ignores the obvious questions about who, how, and why, because the academics simply have no credible explanations.

Over the last century or so, along with the usual domestic artifacts of long-gone settlements, researchers have found more puzzling drawings and other artifacts (e.g. small sculptures or castings in metal). As documented by a number of independent investigators, these items depict flying machines, humanoids in helmets and 'space suits,' and other things that were indecipherable to researchers of even 100 years ago. Today we can identify them because we're making similar devices.

Of course, 'science' just hates to change its mind on an existing sacred cow, so alternate 'explanations' are supplied by the academics who have much to lose, professionally, if they should invoke the scientific principle called 'Occam's Razor,' and accept the simplest theory. That simple theory being that visitors from outside our planet were here in our ancient past, and built the megalithic structures that can be found around the world.

Given that modern science is fraught with its own politics, compounded by the fact that scientists are beholden to the corporate masters that pay their fat salaries, I have no hope that archeology will officially recognize reality, and admit that the mysterious cyclopean structures of antiquity were not built by early human prodigies, but by non-human (or non-terrestrial) beings of unknown origin.

The Bible as well as numerous other ancient traditions make cryptic references to those alien visitors, calling them Nephilim, or 'the Sons of God,' or (in other cultures) star-people or star-brothers, Annunaki, and other terms. Again, the wise men of 'science' dismiss all those references as 'religious myths,' thereby absolving themselves of any need to investigate further.

Regardless of the ignorance of archeology, the plain evidence is that Earth has been visited by extra-terrestrial beings in the past. The big question is: will they come back again?

No comments:

Post a Comment