THE DAY BEFORE DISCLOSURE (Documentary)

[Sinera]

Agreed.You know I have a tendency to turn off whenever anyone references Sitchin. This is because I did a debunking search, something I do quite often, and found a legitimate archaeologist on You Tube who dissected Sitchin alleged scholarship and shadowy credentials. I also found a clip showing him at a Mason gathering and he looked embarrassed about being filmed.

Ok, although I'd like to add I have also my problems with "legitimate" archeology, which is (put in another way) I suppose the "official, orthodox, mainstream-science" archeology who's main goal is it always to keep up the offical (hi)story at all costs and debunk whatever contradicts it. So the question for me is, as in every other field of research and science, does that mean we do not 'touch' the debunkers because they are automatically untouchable / 'legitimate' and thus "right"? Is a 'debunkers' view automatically right then and we grant them the 'last word on the matter' automatically? Or isn't it just another opinion (backed by a belief system) too?

Of course, the archeologist maybe right in this case about Sitchin and I cannot say anything definite about Masonry and all the conspiracy theory behind it as I am thoroughly confused by the info or disinfo given on it from different circles. I am just always asking open-minded questions, and this includes the "debunkers". Often, I also see "debunking", especially when done by the "skeptics societies", as just a rhetorical exercise (in favour of a certain limited world view), rather than a genuine and open-minded search for truth. Just my 2 cents.

[CFTraveler]

I suppose the "official, orthodox, mainstream-science" archeology who's main goal is it always to keep up the official (hi)story at all costs and debunk whatever contradicts it.

I have to respectfully disagree with this. When I took archaeology in college (At the time I was going for a BA in Anthropology) my 'orthodox establishment' teacher taught me about ancient (prehistoric) Indo Aryan culture, like Harappa and Mojenho Daro, which is now considered "Alternative History", for some reason.
It's not that the Sitchins of the world are wrong, it's that the object of their studies is not to find out what's there, but to 'prove' their theory is correct.
It takes forever for 'established' science to change with the evidence, but it does change. Look at how different modern evolutionary theory is from the days of Darwin, and how different physics is from the days of Newton. Establishment science is by nature very conservative, even reactionary, but eventually discoveries are accepted and established theories mutate as time goes on.
I first read Velikovsky (not exactly an ancient astronaut theorist, but his theories were part of 'alternative' history at the time, one of the seminal researchers ) and von Daniken when I was in my late teens (my dad was a fan) and as far as I can see, these guys have a theory- that ancient astronauts came here a long time ago and taught us everything we know, more or less. This may or may not be true, but it doesn't matter to them, because any evidence of past accomplishment is to them 'evidence' of this, regardless of how much they twist what we know about some ancient civilizations.
It is apparent to me that the earth had very advanced technological cultures in our far past, and that history as a smoothly evolving singular entity is wrong- but we just don't know enough about what happened 'way back when' to certainly declare that this or that happened, simply to look at the evidence and say 'well, it looks like this or that', and see what kind of painting the evidence paints.
But IMO modern day ancient astronaut theorists are simply 'alternative materialists', which simply ignore symbolic content in mythology, and anything that even smells like metaphysics, inventing possible technology to explain things like myths and artworks in the basis of 'past histories' as if they were described exactly as what happened, with no room for symbol or meaning. You know, just like modern day Biblical literalists.
Ok, now my rant is over, I'm sorry if I stepped on any ideological toes.

[Beekeeper]

Ok, now my rant is over, I'm sorry if I stepped on any ideological toes.

Well I would have said as much, CF, but probably not as well.

Here is an example.


You can judge for yourself if you wish, Volgerie. Mike Heiser has a PHD in Ancient Semitic languages. He also has a website http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/about/about.htm

[Sinera]

@Beekeeper:
Thanks for the link, I will check it out. Actually, although I mentioned Sitchin's name as a kind of reference to names that pop up in this context now and again, I never have read anything from him so far (and did not intend to). Just seen some of the book covers and 1 or 2 interviews on YT, that's all.

Moreover, a first look on Heiser's website reminds me that indeed I had come across his page already a while ago, so it is indeed not new to me. I need to say though that for me some alarm clocks are ringing already when I see that someone (be it a scholar or just a regular 'skeptic') puts up a website whose sole energy and drive is to debunk more the person than a theory in general (look at the www-name!). Why does the person not present his own views first without any debunking in mind at its core (and just adds a section or a sub-page to take a stand on another person's or group's view)? Sorry, but this also makes me very critical again (speaking of '(self-)debunking of debunkers' ).
Anyway, I will give it and the video a thorough check, then do some own research about Sitchin's work and possible background and come back here to give my conclusions (if I have some).

Just another word about scholarly 'credentials'. Of course that's worth a lot. But please bear in mind that many scholars with academic training still have different views on the same subject - often very different up to diametrically opposed views. Hence, being a 'scholar' does not mean being right autmatically, not even when debunking others solely on the grounds of them not being 'as academic' as their critics are.

Also, sometimes it is hard for academically trained scholars to 'think out of the box' of their established paradigm, which is why I am always in favour of 'renegade' scholars who indeed have an academic background and training and "still dare to" object to the official text book version within their field of expertise. Sometimes also the interdisciplinary aspect is missing completely. E.g. in archeology the experts there should probably listen more closely to what some geologists, specified linguists or technical engineers have to say. As a rule, however, they don't.

@CFT:

It's not that the Sitchins of the world are wrong, it's that the object of their studies is not to find out what's there, but to 'prove' their theory is correct. (...)
It takes forever for 'established' science to change with the evidence, but it does change. Look at how different modern evolutionary theory is from the days of Darwin, and how different physics is from the days of Newton. Establishment science is by nature very conservative, even reactionary, but eventually discoveries are accepted and established theories mutate as time goes on.

Yes, I agree, and I hoped that I had made it clear above already, they might be as close-minded and one-directional in their hypothesis as any "mainstream" experts in their traditional views.

I don't know why it came across to you this way, but I think I already made it clear that I am not a proponent of the AAA-hypothesis.

Please bear in mind this very important point: In the quote you gave of me I was only referring to what I called "step one": the acknowledgement that something speaks against the official view of history, because there is evidence that might point to 1. advanced high civilisations (far) before the Sumerians and Egyptians and in the more recent (although still 'ancient') past 2. a different course of evolution due to a much longer human history in the distant Earth past. I was not referring to any ackknowledgement of "step two", thus hypothesising on any ET influence.

In both cases, 1 and 2, it is obvious what M. Cremo (see his talk) but also many other "alternative" ("renegade"?) researchers refer to: an almost systematic filtering out of evidence that doubts the official paradigm. In his book (and this is just an example of many) Cremo mentions stone artefacts (e.g. manufctured primitive tools) found in certain strata and other artefacts found in "deeper" strata. Despite their identical state and properties, the artefacts of the not-so-deep strata that hint to a more recent origin are seen as worked on by humans or humanoid beings, the others are not because interpreting them this way does not fit the evolutioniary (case 2!) paradigm. So they are treated differently.
There are different strategies for this. Some were neglected and 'forgotten' over history, some got lost, some are 'hidden' in museums vaults (see Cremo talk!), some existing OOO-parts are declared 'debunked' (see almost any Wikipedia entries ... ) because some hypotheses uttered by experts are 'accepted as truth' then when they are 'convenient' with the paradigm. On the other hand, other hypotheses favouring other origins that are challenging the paradigm are disregarded, in many cases the persons are even attacked. Many, who are also experts and scholars (!), lost their jobs (or were threatened to lose them) in the establishment when they stayed with their 'deviant' opinons.

Yes, it is right, as in other fields (e.g. psi research), we know that science is a bureaucratic, conservative and slow-moving apparatus. However, there is something 'fishy' going on, if you ask me. And I am not the only one who thinks this way. I think it is already wrong that by many you are declared a 'nutter' if you at least entertain possibilities different from the orthodox scholarly view. It shows how much unfairness and emotion is already involved, and it proves that it is more or less also a war of world views / belief systems. This gets even more vitriolic in terms of evolution and neo-darwinism. Evolutionist do not want to change paradigms. It has already become a kind of replacement-religon for the seculars. Anyone challenging it (even if with good arguments) is either a 'creationist' or 'ID-er' (to them its the same) or, to sum it up, a nutter altogether.

Cremo also mentions that 'the establisment' tried to avoid the broadcast of an NBC show on Forbidden Archeology (but they failed). They even appealed to the authorities. How deep does that rabbit hole go? Why are they compelled to do that? Have they so much to lose?

Btw, here it is. I haven't seen it yet, but will do soon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oGqPc6poS4

And this is by far not the only case. You might remember my post about the Bosnian 'pyramids'. No matter what they will find about them, it should at least be investigated and all of it excavated. A group of 'established' scholars tried to prevent further excavations and to stop the project. I wrote about it here.
Again, same question: how deep down goes the rabbit hole? Why do they try to prevent it? Some people seem to be keen on keeping history (or any text) books as they are. There is resistance to change all over the place.

Many other "alternative" researchers report on restrictions of this kind and the almost systematic destruction of evidence. One can argue, of course, that maybe some of them are also lying or exaggerating in their claims. Well, yes, I admit finding truth is complex in this world, especially if belief systems are involved.

But IMO modern day ancient astronaut theorists are simply 'alternative materialists', which simply ignore symbolic content in mythology, and anything that even smells like metaphysics, inventing possible technology to explain things like myths and artworks in the basis of 'past histories' as if they were described exactly as what happened, with no room for symbol or meaning. You know, just like modern day Biblical literalists.

I can agree to all what you write. Believe it or not, "materialist" is exactly also what I thought when I watched e.g. "Ancient Aliens" on YT. It is also what I expressed already above when I talked about their "traditional Star Trek"-like vision of spaceships that come here and when I said that I do not think that ETs (whatever they are) are flying around in 'tin cans'.
The AAA theorists are thoroughly materialistic and 'conventional' in their theories. To do them justice: They had one episode with Angels and similar stuff where they also hypothesised about "super/hyper-" (instead of extra-)terrestial beings, but it was the only one. Mostly it is about material technolgoy and spaceships.
It is the same with the "reptiles" or "serpent gods", many are religious and/or mythological concepts, of which we actually don't know if it is/was religion, mythology, symbolism and folk lore or if anything really manifested then here on the physical plane. We don't know. We cannot know. We can only speculate and entertain ourselves with it. But let me please repeat again: this is about "step 2". As explained I have a more rigid stance with regard to "step 1".

Ok, now my rant is over, I'm sorry if I stepped on any ideological toes.

I do not think that I have or "follow" any ideology. Actually, I hope I made clear that I was also criticising ideologies and their paradigms (the AAA as well as the mainstream one).

When I said that I like the Ancient Aliens shows and like to read some books about it, I do not mean that I am a blind follower and swallow it all hook, line and sinker. No, as you also said, it is an interesting "well, it could be" for me. This makes it thrilling. And most of all these shows are good entertainment for me more than anything else. It gets an extra-thrill for me, contrary to pure (science) fiction, because it contains the element of "could have been true, or at least part of it", not more but also not less.

And as stated above, if I smell something 'fishy' in mainstream science (and we have similar discussions in other fields such as e.g. psi research) one might want to attach the label 'conspiracy theorist' to me - and thereby see this as an 'ideology'? However, I do by far not buy everything that conspiracy people throw at us. Anyway, if you want to put this label onto me, feel free to do so, but I myself don't apply it to me.

[CFTraveler]

@ Volgerle:
Believe it or not, I think in terms of beliefs (or lack of them) you and I see eye-to eye more than it seems.

I don't know why it came across to you this way, but I think I already made it clear that I am not a proponent of the AAA-hypothesis.

I wasn't arguing with you personally, or to any worldview you might have, but the idea that a discipline is automatically wrong if it is in the mainstream, which is what the quote above suggested (to me). I'm sorry if I came accross as arguing that specific point with you. At some point I felt I needed to clarify that I wasn't against the idea, because I thought I was coming across as a 'skeptic' about such theories, which I am actually on the fence about.