Archaeological Cover-ups -- A Plot to Control History?

[Guest guest]

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/arcoverups.html Archaeological Cover-ups-- A Plot to Control History? --The scientific establishment tends to reject, suppress or ignore evidencethat conflicts with accepted theories, while denigrating or persecuting themessenger.--Extracted from Nexus Magazine, Volume 9, Number 3 (April-May 2002)PO Box 30, Mapleton Qld 4560 Australia. editorTelephone: +61 (0)7 5442 9280; Fax: +61 (0)7 5442 9381>From our web page at: www.nexusmagazine.comby Will Hart © 2002Email: Wrtsearch1"THE BRAIN POLICE" AND "THE BIG LIE"Any time you allege a conspiracy is afoot, especially in the field ofscience, you are treading on thin ice. We tend to be very sceptical aboutconspiracies--unless the Mafia or some Muslim radicals are behind thealleged plot. But the evidence is overwhelming and the irony is that much ofit is in plain view.The good news is that the players are obvious. Their game plan and eventheir play-by-play tactics are transparent, once you learn to spot them.However, it is not so easy to penetrate through the smokescreen ofpropaganda and disinformation to get to their underlying motives and goals.It would be convenient if we could point to a plumber's unit and a boldfaceliar like Richard Nixon, but this is a more subtle operation.The bad news: the conspiracy is global and there are many vested interestgroups. A cursory investigation yields the usual suspects: scientists with atheoretical axe to grind, careers to further and the status quo to maintain.Their modus operandi is "The Big Lie"--and the bigger and more widelypublicised, the better. They rely on invoking their academic credentials tosupport their arguments, and the presumption is that no one has the right toquestion their authoritarian pronouncements that:1. there is no mystery about who built the Great Pyramid or what the methodsof construction were, and the Sphinx shows no signs of water damage;2. there were no humans in the Americas before 20,000 BC;3. the first civilisation dates back no further than 6000 BC;4. there are no documented anomalous, unexplained or enigmatic data to takeinto account;5. there are no lost or unaccounted-for civilisations.Let the evidence to the contrary be damned!Personal Attacks: Dispute over Age of the Sphinx and Great PyramidIn 1993, NBC in the USA aired The Mysteries of the Sphinx, which presentedgeological evidence showing that the Sphinx was at least twice as old (9,000years) as Egyptologists claimed. It has become well known as the "watererosion controversy". An examination of the politicking that Egyptologistsdeployed to combat this undermining of their turf is instructive.Self-taught Egyptologist John Anthony West brought the water erosion issueto the attention of geologist Dr Robert Schoch. They went to Egypt andlaunched an intensive on-site investigation. After thoroughly studying theSphinx first hand, the geologist came to share West's preliminary conclusionand they announced their findings.Dr Zahi Hawass, the Giza Monuments chief, wasted no time in firing a barrageof public criticism at the pair. Renowned Egyptologist Dr Mark Lehner, whois regarded as the world's foremost expert on the Sphinx, joined his attack.He charged West and Schoch with being "ignorant and insensitive". That was acurious accusation which took the matter off the professional level and putthe whole affair on a personal plane. It did not address the facts or issuesat all and it was highly unscientific.But we must note the standard tactic of discrediting anyone who dares tocall the accepted theories into question. Shifting the focus away from theissues and "personalising" the debate is a highly effective strategy--onewhich is often used by politicians who feel insecure about their positions.Hawass and Lehner invoked their untouchable status and presumed authority.(One would think that a geologist's assessment would hold more weight onthis particular point.)A short time later, Schoch, Hawass and Lehner were invited to debate theissue at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. West wasnot allowed to participate because he lacked the required credentials.This points to a questionable assumption that is part of the establishment'sarsenal: only degreed scientists can practise science. Two filters keep theuncredentialled, independent researcher out of the loop: (1) credentials,and (2) peer review. You do not get to number two unless you have numberone.Science is a method that anyone can learn and apply. It does not require adegree to observe and record facts and think critically about them,especially in the non-technical social sciences. In a free and open society,science has to be a democratic process.Be that as it may, West was barred. The elements of the debate have beenbatted back and forth since then without resolution. It is similar to thecontroversy over who built the Giza pyramids and how.This brings up the issue of The Big Lie and how it has been promoted forgenerations in front of God and everyone. The controversy over how the GreatPyramid was constructed is one example. It could be easily settled ifEgyptologists wanted to resolve the dispute. A simple test could be designedand arranged by impartial engineers that would either prove or disprovetheir longstanding disputed theory--that it was built using the primitivetools and methods of the day, circa 2500 BC.Why hasn't this been done? The answer is so obvious, it seems impossible:they know that the theory is bogus. Could a trained, highly educatedscientist really believe that 2.3 million tons of stone, some blocksweighing 70 tons, could have been transported and lifted by primitivemethods? That seems improbable, though they have no compunction againstlying to the public, writing textbooks and defending this theory againstalternative theories. However, we must note that they will not subjectthemselves to the bottom-line test.We think it is incumbent upon any scientist to bear the burden of proof ofhis/her thesis; however, the social scientists who make these claims havenever stood up to that kind of scrutiny. That is why we must suspect aconspiracy. No other scientific discipline would get away with bending therules of science. All that Egyptologists have ever done is bat downalternative theories using underhanded tactics. It is time to insist thatthey prove their own proposals.Why would scientists try to hide the truth and avoid any test of theirhypothesis? Their motivations are equally transparent. If it can be provedthat the Egyptians did not build the Great Pyramid in 2500 BC usingprimitive methods, or if the Sphinx can be dated to 9000 BC, the whole houseof cards comes tumbling down. Orthodox views of cultural evolution are basedupon a chronology of civilisation having started in Sumeria no earlier than4000 BC. The theory does not permit an advanced civilisation to have existedprior to that time. End of discussion. Archaeology and history lose theirmeaning without a fixed timeline as a point of reference.Since the theory of "cultural evolution" has been tied to Darwin's generaltheory of evolution, even more is at stake. Does this explain why facts,anomalies and enigmas are denied, suppressed and/or ignored? Yes, it does.The biological sciences today are based on Darwinism.Pressure Tactics: The Ica Stones of PeruNow we turn to another, very different case. In 1966, Dr Javier Cabrerareceived a stone as a gift from a poor local farmer in his native Ica, Peru.A fish was carved on the stone, which would not have meant much to theaverage villager but it did mean a lot to the educated Dr Cabrera. Herecognised it as a long-extinct species. This aroused his curiosity. Hepurchased more stones from the farmer, who said he had collected them nearthe river after a flood.Dr Cabrera accumulated more and more stones, and word of their existence andpotential import reached the archaeological community. Soon, the doctor hadamassed thousands of "Ica stones". The sophisticated carvings were asenigmatic as they were fascinating. Someone had carved men fighting withdinosaurs, men with telescopes and men performing operations with surgicalequipment. They also contained drawings of lost continents.Several of the stones were sent to Germany and the etchings were dated toremote antiquity. But we all know that men could not have lived at the timeof dinosaurs; Homo sapiens has only existed for about 100,000 years.The BBC got wind of this discovery and swooped down to produce a documentaryabout the Ica stones. The media exposure ignited a storm of controversy.Archaeologists criticised the Peruvian government for being lax aboutenforcing antiquities laws (but that was not their real concern). Pressurewas applied to government officials.The farmer who had been selling the stones to Cabrera was arrested; heclaimed to have found them in a cave but refused to disclose the exactlocation to authorities, or so they claimed.This case was disposed of so artfully that it would do any corruptpolitician proud. The Peruvian government threatened to prosecute andimprison the farmer. He was offered and accepted a plea bargain; he thenrecanted his story and "admitted" to having carved the stones himself. Thatseems highly implausible, since he was uneducated and unskilled and therewere 11,000 stones in all. Some were fairly large and intricately carvedwith animals and scenes that the farmer would not have had knowledge ofwithout being a palaeontologist. He would have needed to work every day forseveral decades to produce that volume of stones. However, the underlyingfacts were neither here nor there. The Ica stones were labelled "hoax" andforgotten.The case did not require a head-to-head confrontation or public discreditingof non-scientists by scientists; it was taken care of with invisiblepressure tactics. Since it was filed under "hoax", the enigmatic evidencenever had to be dealt with, as it did in the next example.Censorship of "Forbidden" Thinking: Evidence for Mankind's Great AntiquityThe case of author Michael Cremo is well documented, and it alsodemonstrates how the scientific establishment openly uses pressure tacticson the media and government. His book Forbidden Archeology examines manypreviously ignored examples of artifacts that prove modern man's antiquityfar exceeds the age given in accepted chronologies.The examples which he and his co-author present are controversial, but thebook became far more controversial than the contents when it was used in adocumentary.In 1996, NBC broadcast a special called The Mysterious Origins of Man, whichfeatured material from Cremo's book. The reaction from the scientificcommunity went off the Richter scale. NBC was deluged with letters fromirate scientists who called the producer "a fraud" and the whole program "ahoax".But the scientists went further than this--a lot further. In an extremelyunconscionable sequence of bizarre moves, they tried to force NBC not torebroadcast the popular program, but that effort failed. Then they took themost radical step of all: they presented their case to the federalgovernment and requested the Federal Communications Commission to step inand bar NBC from airing the program again.This was not only an apparent infringement of free speech and a blatantattempt to thwart commerce, it was an unprecedented effort to censorintellectual discourse. If the public or any government agency made anattempt to handcuff the scientific establishment, the public would neverhear the end of it.The letter to the FCC written by Dr Allison Palmer, President of theInstitute for Cambrian Studies, is revealing:At the very least, NBC should be required to make substantial prime-timeapologies to their viewing audience for a sufficient period of time so thatthe audience clearly gets the message that they were duped. In addition, NBCshould perhaps be fined sufficiently so that a major fund for public scienceeducation can be established.I think we have some good leads on who "the Brain Police" are. And I reallydo not think "conspiracy" is too strong a word--because for every case ofthis kind of attempted suppression that is exposed, 10 others are going onsuccessfully. We have no idea how many enigmatic artifacts or dates havebeen labelled "error" and tucked away in storage warehouses or circularfiles, never to see the light of day.Data Rejection: Inconvenient Dating in MexicoThen there is the high-profile case of Dr Virginia Steen-McIntyre, ageologist working for the US Geological Survey (USGS), who was dispatched toan archaeological site in Mexico to date a group of artifacts in the 1970s.This travesty also illustrates how far established scientists will go toguard orthodox tenets.McIntyre used state-of-the-art equipment and backed up her results by usingfour different methods, but her results were off the chart. The leadarchaeologist expected a date of 25,000 years or less, and the geologist'sfinding was 250,000 years or more.The figure of 25,000 years or less was critical to the Bering Strait"crossing" theory, and it was the motivation behind the head archaeologist'stossing Steen-McIntyre's results in the circular file and asking for a newseries of dating tests. This sort of reaction does not occur when datesmatch the expected chronological model that supports accepted theories.Steen-McIntyre was given a chance to retract her conclusions, but sherefused. She found it hard thereafter to get her papers published and shelost a teaching job at an American university.Government Suppression and Ethnocentrism: Avoiding Anomalous Evidence in NZ,China and MexicoIn New Zealand, the government actually stepped in and enacted a lawforbidding the public from entering a controversial archaeological zone.This story appeared in the book, Ancient Celtic New Zealand, by Mark Doutré.However, as we will find (and as I promised at the beginning of thearticle), this is a complicated conspiracy. Scientists trying to protecttheir "hallowed" theories while furthering their careers are not the onlyones who want artifacts and data suppressed. This is where the situationgets sticky.The Waipoua Forest became a controversial site in New Zealand because anarchaeological dig apparently showed evidence of a non-Polynesian culturethat preceded the Maori--a fact that the tribe was not happy with. Theylearned of the results of the excavations before the general public did andcomplained to the government. According to Doutré, the outcome was "anofficial archival document, which clearly showed an intention by New Zealandgovernment departments to withhold archaeological information from publicscrutiny for 75 years".The public got wind of this fiasco but the government denied the claim.However, official documents show that an embargo had been placed on thesite. Doutré is a student of New Zealand history and archaeology. He isconcerned because he says that artifacts proving that there was an earlierculture which preceded the Maori are missing from museums. He asks whathappened to several anomalous remains:Where are the ancient Indo-European hair samples (wavy red brown hair),originally obtained from a rock shelter near Watakere, that were on displayat the Auckland War Memorial Museum for many years? Where is the giantskeleton found near Mitimati?Unfortunately this is not the only such incident. Ethnocentrism has become afactor in the conspiracy to hide mankind's true history. Author GrahamHancock has been attacked by various ethnic groups for reporting similarenigmatic findings.The problem for researchers concerned with establishing humanity's truehistory is that the goals of nationalists or ethnic groups who want to layclaim to having been in a particular place first, often dovetail with thegoals of cultural evolutionists.Archaeologists are quick to go along with suppressing these kinds ofanomalous finds. One reason Egyptologists so jealously guard the GreatPyramid's construction date has to do with the issue of national pride.The case of the Takla Makan Desert mummies in western China is anotherexample of this phenomenon. In the 1970s and 1980s, an unaccounted-forCaucasian culture was suddenly unearthed in China. The arid environmentpreserved the remains of a blond-haired, blue-eyed people who lived inpre-dynastic China. They wore colourful robes, boots, stockings and hats.The Chinese were not happy about this revelation and they have downplayedthe enigmatic find, even though Asians were found buried alongside theCaucasian mummies.National Geographic writer Thomas B. Allen mused in a 1996 article about hisfinding a potsherd bearing a fingerprint of the potter. When he inquired ifhe could take the fragment to a forensic anthropologist, the Chinesescientist asked whether he "would be able to tell if the potter was a whiteman". Allen said he was not sure, and the official pocketed the fragment andquietly walked away. It appears that many things get in the way ofscientific discovery and disclosure.The existence of the Olmec culture in Old Mexico has always posed a problem.Where did the Negroid people depicted on the colossal heads come from? Whyare there Caucasians carved on the stele in what is Mexico's seedcivilisation? What is worse, why aren't the indigenous Mexican people foundon the Olmec artifacts? Recently a Mexican archaeologist solved the problemby making a fantastic claim: that the Olmec heads--which generations ofpeople of all ethnic groups have agreed bear a striking resemblance toAfricans--were really representations of the local tribe.STORMTROOPERS FOR DARWINISMThe public does not seem at all aware of the fact that the scientificestablishment has a double standard when it comes to the free flow ofinformation. In essence, it goes like this... Scientists are highlyeducated, well trained and intellectually capable of processing all types ofinformation, and they can make the correct critical distinctions betweenfact and fiction, reality and fantasy. The unwashed public is simplyincapable of functioning on this high mental plane.The noble ideal of the scientist as a highly trained, impartial, apoliticalobserver and assembler of established facts into a useful body of knowledgeseems to have been shredded under the pressures and demands of the realworld. Science has produced many positive benefits for society; but weshould know by now that science has a dark, negative side. Didn't those meekfellows in the clean lab coats give us nuclear bombs and biological weapons?The age of innocence ended in World War II.That the scientific community has an attitude of intellectual superiority isthinly veiled under a carefully orchestrated public relations guise. Wealways see Science and Progress walking hand in hand. Science as aninstitution in a democratic society has to function in the same way as thesociety at large; it should be open to debate, argument andcounter-argument. There is no place for unquestioned authoritarianism. Ismodern science meeting these standards?In the Fall of 2001, PBS aired a seven-part series, titled Evolution. Takenat face value, that seems harmless enough. However, while the program waspresented as pure, objective, investigative science journalism, itcompletely failed to meet even minimum standards of impartial reporting. Theseries was heavily weighted towards the view that the theory of evolution is"a science fact" that is accepted by "virtually all reputable scientists inthe world", and not a theory that has weaknesses and strong scientificcritics.The series did not even bother to interview scientists who have criticismsof Darwinism: not "creationists" but bona fide scientists. To correct thisdeficiency, a group of 100 dissenting scientists felt compelled to issue apress release, "A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism", on the day the firstprogram was scheduled to go to air. Nobel nominee Henry "Fritz" Schaefer wasamong them. He encouraged open public debate of Darwin's theory:Some defenders of Darwinism embrace standards of evidence for evolution thatas scientists they would never accept in other circumstances.We have seen this same "unscientific" approach applied to archaeology andanthropology, where "scientists" simply refuse to prove their theories yetappoint themselves as the final arbiters of "the facts". It would be naiveto think that the scientists who cooperated in the production of the serieswere unaware that there would be no counter-balancing presentation bycritics of Darwin's theory.Richard Milton is a science journalist. He had been an ardent true believerin Darwinian doctrine until his investigative instincts kicked in one day.After 20 years of studying and writing about evolution, he suddenly realisedthat there were many disconcerting holes in the theory. He decided to try toallay his doubts and prove the theory to himself by using the standardmethods of investigative journalism.Milton became a regular visitor to London's famed Natural History Museum. Hepainstakingly put every main tenet and classic proof of Darwinism to thetest. The results shocked him. He found that the theory could not even standup to the rigours of routine investigative journalism.The veteran science writer took a bold step and published a book titled TheFacts of Life: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism. It is clear that theDarwinian myth had been shattered for him, but many more myths about sciencewould also be crushed after his book came out. Milton says:I experienced the witch-hunting activity of the Darwinist police at firsthandÉit was deeply disappointing to find myself being described by aprominent Oxford zoologist [Richard Dawkins] as "loony", "stupid" and "inneed of psychiatric help" in response to purely scientific reporting.(Does this sound like stories that came out of the Soviet Union 20 years agowhen dissident scientists there started speaking out?)Dawkins launched a letter-writing campaign to newspaper editors, implyingthat Milton was a "mole" creationist whose work should be dismissed. Anyoneat all familiar with politics will recognise this as a standardMachiavellian by-the-book "character assassination" tactic. Dawkins is ahighly respected scientist, whose reputation and standing in the scientificcommunity carry a great deal of weight.According to Milton, the process came to a head when the London Times HigherEducation Supplement commissioned him to write a critique of Darwinism. Thepublication foreshadowed his coming piece: "Next Week: Darwinism - RichardMilton goes on the attack". Dawkins caught wind of this and wasted no timein nipping this heresy in the bud. He contacted the editor, Auriol Stevens,and accused Milton of being a "creationist", and prevailed upon Stevens topull the plug on the article. Milton learned of this behind-the-scenesbackstabbing and wrote a letter of appeal to Stevens. In the end, she cavedin to Dawkins and scratched the piece.Imagine what would happen if a politician or bureaucrat used such pressuretactics to kill a story in the mass media. It would ignite a huge scandal.Not so with scientists, who seem to be regarded as "sacred cows" and beyondreproach. There are many disturbing facts related to these cases. Darwin'stheory of evolution is the only theory routinely taught in our public schoolsystem that has never been subjected to rigorous scrutiny; nor have any ofthe criticisms been allowed into the curriculum.This is an interesting fact, because a recent poll showed that the Americanpublic wants the theory of evolution taught to their children; however, "71per cent of the respondents say biology teachers should teach both Darwinismand scientific evidence against Darwinian theory". Nevertheless, there areno plans to implement this balanced approach.It is ironic that Richard Dawkins has been appointed to the position ofProfessor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. He isa classic "Brain Police" stormtrooper, patrolling the neurological frontlines. The Western scientific establishment and mass media pride themselveson being open public forums devoid of prejudice or censorship. However, notelevision program examining the flaws and weaknesses of Darwinism has everbeen aired in Darwin's home country or in America. A scientist who opposesthe theory cannot get a paper published.The Mysterious Origins of Man was not a frontal attack on Darwinism; itmerely presented evidence that is considered anomalous by the precepts ofhis theory of evolution.Returning to our bastions of intellectual integrity, Forest Mims was a solidand skilled science journalist. He had never been the centre of anycontroversy and so he was invited to write the most-read column in theprestigious Scientific American, "The Amateur Scientist", a task he gladlyaccepted. According to Mims, the magazine's editor Jonathan Piel thenlearned that he also wrote articles for a number of Christian magazines. Theeditor called Mims into his office and confronted him."Do you believe in the theory of evolution?" Piel asked.Mims replied, "No, and neither does Stephen Jay Gould."His response did not affect Piel's decision to bump Mims off the popularcolumn after just three articles.This has the unpleasant odour of a witch-hunt. The writer never publiclybroadcast his private views or beliefs, so it would appear that the"stormtroopers" now believe they have orders to make sure "unapproved"thoughts are never publicly disclosed.TABOO OR NOT TABOO?So, the monitors of "good thinking" are not just the elite of the scientificcommunity, as we have seen in several cases; they are television producersand magazine editors as well. It seems clear that they are all driven by thesingular imperative of furthering "public science education", as thepresident of the Cambrian Institute so aptly phrased it.However, there is a second item on the agenda, and that is to protect thepublic from "unscientific" thoughts and ideas that might infect the massmind. We outlined some of those taboo subjects at the beginning of thearticle; now we should add that it is also "unwholesome" and "unacceptable"to engage in any of the following research pursuits: paranormal phenomena,UFOs, cold fusion, free energy and all the rest of the "pseudo-sciences".Does this have a familiar ring to it? Are we hearing the faint echoes ofreligious zealotry?Who ever gave science the mission of engineering and directing theinquisitive pursuits of the citizenry of the free world? It is all butimpossible for any scientific paper that has anti-Darwinian ramifications tobe published in a mainstream scientific journal. It is also just asimpossible to get the "taboo" subjects even to the review table, and you canforget about finding your name under the title of any article in Natureunless you are a credentialled scientist, even if you are the next AlbertEinstein.To restate how this conspiracy begins, it is with two filters: credentialsand peer review. Modern science is now a maze of such filters set up topromote certain orthodox theories and at the same time filter out that dataalready prejudged to be unacceptable. Evidence and merit are not the guidingprinciples; conformity and position within the established community havereplaced objectivity, access and openness.Scientists do not hesitate to launch the most outrageous personal attacksagainst those they perceive to be the enemy. Eminent palaeontologist LouisLeakey penned this acid one-liner about Forbidden Archeology: "Your book ispure humbug and does not deserve to be taken seriously by anyone but afool." Once again, we see the thrust of a personal attack; the merits of theevidence presented in the book are not examined or debated. It is a blunt,authoritarian pronouncement.In a forthcoming instalment, we will examine some more documented cases anddelve deeper into the subtler dimensions of the conspiracy.References and Resources:¥ Cremo, Michael A. and Richard L. Thompson, Forbidden Archeology, GovardhanHill, USA, 1993.¥ Cremo, Michael A., "The Controversy over 'The Mysterious Origins of Man'",NEXUS 5/04, 1998; Forbidden Archeology's Impact, Bhaktivedanta BookPublishing, USA, 1998, website http://www.mcremo.com.¥ Doore, Kathy, "The Nazca Spaceport & the Ica Stones of Peru",http://www.labyrinthina.com/ica.htm; see website for copy of Dr JavierCabrera's book, The Message of the Engraved Stones.¥ Doutré, Mark, Ancient Celtic New Zealand, Dé Danann, New Zealand, 1999,website http://www.celticnz.co.nz.¥ Milton, Richard, The Facts of Life: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism,Corgi, UK, 1993, http://www.alternativescience.com.¥ Steen-McIntyre, Virginia, "Suppressed Evidence for Ancient Man in Mexico",NEXUS 5/05, 1998.¥ Sunfellow, David, "The Great Pyramid & The Sphinx", November 25, 1994, athttp://www.nhne.com/specialrepots/spyramid.html.¥ Tampa Bay Tribune, October 12, 2001 (Darwinism/evolution quote),http://www.tampatrib.com.About the Author:Will Hart is a freelance journalist, book author, nature photographer anddocumentary filmmaker. He lives and does much of his research in the LakeTahoe area in the USA, and writes a column titled "The Tahoe Naturalist" fora regional publication. He has produced and directed films about wolves andwild horses.