What We Have Been Taught About Our Origins May Be A Lie

 
No need for 'bull', let's just use 'shit'. So, is it time to travel down the shit hole? Well, when we put it like that, I don't think I'll bother. 
 

 
As far as I know I'm just one guy - who are these others you think me to be? I hope you're not assuming something about me you've just decided you know.
 

 
Really?
 
Informing others of something I like and letting them form their own opinion isn't good enough? It doesn't require me to do anything else until I feel a need to do so. It is you who claims it is bullshit, and if this is you being open to new ideas . . . .
 
Merely stating the ideas contained in the article are all bullshit in your opinion means nothing. Without saying why you think each is so you instead want me to do it the way you think it should be done. Sorry mate, not gonna happen.
 
Quite a typical response of course, and something to be expected. Even if there is no possibility of any truth in anything the article contains, which is unlikely as it's not a work of fiction, taking the stance you have is no different to the fundamental creationists acting as if they have it all figured out too. One of the reasons atheism is as much a belief mindset as its opposite. Perhaps your whole world would collapse if you had to accept that what you think you know might not be quite as you think it is.
 
If you are so sure there is no truth what would be the point in discussing it? Just as a believer cannot, nor should he, try to convince anyone that what they feel is right making others wrong, you seem to have to be right or at least make me wrong. You can't dispute the theory because it isn't mine so you attack me personally as if you have no choice but to. According to you it's just some bullshit article. Why care so much?
 
And yes, I posted something that was interesting to me and suggested others take a look for themselves. Didn't expect the GC thought police to take offence at that. I'm quite happy to leave it at that. If you're so sure there can be no truth in any of it, carry on. I have no need to make anyone see anything.
 
 

 

 
 
This is interesting.
 
Now, without saying this is real or not, and I certainly haven't researched it or examined it myself, there are quite a few things that when one looks make it seem as if there are other explanations.
 
Of course, debunkers have to dismiss everything, just as an atheist has to dismiss any concept of God because he's already made his mind up. Actually, most atheists, if they're honest, are really agnostic - nobody can say for sure that it cannot be other, they just want evidence to convince them first. They remain closed to anything until it does, not realising it is they who will always make the facts fits their interpretation, as there can be no evidence in this area that will.
 
Very convenient that the idea of God cannot be proven scientifically, so of course that gives them another opportunity to take the smug stance.
 
It is not that anyone has it right or wrong, nor does anyone need to prove to someone who stands with their arms folded that anything they feel is true for them. It is true for them, and that is enough, unless and until that changes.
 
I know many would like things to be clear and unambiguous, but life is not like that however much you think it should be. I'm glad there are things still unknown, up for debate. At least it stops those who tell us they know from having it all their own way.
 

 

 
I think I covered why I posted it already.
 
I don't need to be right, nor must I entangle my ego so I will then need to defend it and therefore make someone wrong in order to do so successfully. That is one of the reasons I rarely post here now.
 
As to whether my posts are long - well, they are as long as they need to be.
 
Even if I were certain of the validity of everything the article claims, because I had done the research or performed the tests myself, etc, it would still be just an opinion, and I still don't have to convince you I am right, even though others will often feel to do just that once they decide they believe something.
 
There ARE things we do not have right - nobody has it all figured out, no matter how much they may claim they know something or how important they seem to sound when they reveal it.
 
In a way, those who make it their business to discredit anything that doesn't agree with the current thinking are showing that they have a need to be right, have concluded something because that makes them feel like they know something, and cannot stand that someone might hold another idea that they are certain cannot be real.

 

Alright, not everything is a lie - that is after all their title not mine, even if I did use it in the OP.
 
Don't feel bad. I like writing.
 
All I'll say is some things are not as we've been told they are; it is the way the world seems to operate.
 
Doesn't matter. Just keep believing the party line.

 

Actually, I'll also add this:
 
By saying just keep believing the party line, I'm implying you're wrong to believe what you do. You aren't wrong.
 
However, let's say it was confirmed that we are in contact with ET, have been visited, that there are ET's in our reality, and really, in a way, why wouldn't this be possible given the immensity and age of the Universe, it would really change things. There's plenty of evidence that indicates this may be true, from individual experience to photographs, yet the official party line is that there is no truth in this whatsoever.
 
Would I be right in saying that as our governments often reveal themselves to be deceiving us, spinning us a yarn they want us to believe about what they do and their motives behind it, you completely refute any possibility that there might be truth in some of these claims?

 

There are many holes in the fabric of mainstream history such as a map found in 1513 by Piri Reis, a famous admiral of the Turkish fleet in the sixteenth century.
It depicts Antarctica as ice free as well as the coastlines of the Americas – this should be impossible.
According to mainstream history this should not be in existence as Antarctica apparently has had ice on it for millions of years; apparently. The map also uses mathematics as well as the longitude and latitude system which Professor Charles Hapgood has investigated and confirmed despite there being no such system at the time.
The Dulcert Portellano map of 1339 as well as other maps show according to Hapgood's research …
“almost unaltered copies of the same original.”
Which is detailed in his book Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings, it has also been shown that there was an advanced worldwide civilization thousands of years before ancient Egypt.
Before we enter this aspect of the information, I will tell you mainstream “history's” view of the birth human civilization: It spontaneously appeared out of nowhere in an ancient empire known as Sumer roughly 6,000 years ago, Sumer was located in present day Iraq.
Archeologist Peter Beaumont has provided solid evidence that there was advance gold mining in Swaziland, in southern Africa 50,000 years ago.

In the Ancient Ruins of Rhodesia by R.N. Hall and W.G. Neal, they prove that the people of South Africa were worshiping the same god as the Pheonicians known as Baal. Which basically means that there was one advanced civilization that spanned all the way to the south of ancient Africa. The Pheonicians also traveled and operated far beyond the establishment view of only Northern Africa.
Author and explorer Semir Osmanagic discovered pyramids in Bosnia that have been measured by scientists to be over25,000 years old. Semir has been viciously persecuted by Egyptologists who are desperate to maintain their prestige as well as the official narrative of history it seems. How could this have happened if humanity's first civilization appeared only 6,000 years ago?
These pyramids are also massive in size and age when compared to the lesser “Great” Pyramids of Giza. Egyptologists ludicrously claim these are “hills” – despite physicist Slobodan Mizrak recording high electromagnetic intervals at the tips of these pyramids that do not occur naturally.

Archaeologists have entered the pyramids and concrete taken from there has been tested independently by Italy's Polytechnic University of Turin. PUT is a leading Italian institution and they found the construction material is 5 times stronger than any concrete they've ever analyzed. Yet mainstream history says these are just “hills”??(image source)
I personally can't believe this, but in actual fact they are desperately trying to hold this “truth” together; miserably in my opinion.
The Great Sphinx of Giza has 15,000 thousand years of water erosion on its surface when it is in one of the driest places in the world. Once again how could this be if the first civilization was 6,000 years ago?


The statue of Ramses II located in Luxor, Egypt, is made out of red granite which has a number of 7 on the Mohs mineral hardness scale; that is a density level of quartz crystal.

Mainstream history wants you to believe that ancient Egyptians carved a perfectly symmetrical face into some of the hardest stone known to man using primitive hand tools. The statue not only has a precisely mirrored face, it also was manifested with Pythagorean Triangle, the Golden Rectangle and Golden Triangle in mind and this can be measured on the face. Basically in “laymen” terms this statue has been encoded with sacred geometry; knowledge universally recorded by the ancients. It has advanced mathematics threaded within the very design of the face.
Archaeologist Christopher Dunn spent well over 30 years of thorough research documenting and presenting evidence that the Egyptians could not have made these monoliths (and so much more) with mainstream history's “explanation.” Dunn concluded after decades of research that they had to have had advanced technology to create these elaborate structures.

In 1922, near Broken Hill, Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) a skull of a “Neanderthal” (actually Homo Heidelbergensis a distant cousin of Neanderthal and Homo Erectus from Africa) was found with a bullet hole in its head. The species is estimated to be 120-300 thousand years old and this skull was found 60 feet below the surface.
There have also been ancient, extinct animals found withbullet holes in them. This particular animal is an extinct cousin of the bison that once lived in Europe thousands of years ago, it was known as the auroch. This particular auroch skull was recovered in the Lena River in Russia, and it survived the wound because the edge has been calcified.
There are fractures known as radial fractures, these crack around the edge. Only these skulls do not have radial fractures, and this could have only happened with a projectile projected with tremendous velocity.

Recently, a phenomenal structure was discovered in South-East Turkey near the city of Sunliurf. Named Gobekli Tepe, it is primarily circular structures on top of a hill. There are T-shaped pillars that weigh up to 20 tons and are decorated with carved animals.

The site is estimated to be at least 12,000 years old and perhaps older. The German and Turkish archeologists found via geomagnetic surveys that there are also hundreds more buried. So not only do these ruins predate Stonehenge, they were also intentionally buried and that is why they are preserved so well. The archeologists asked how could primitive people have done this with hand tools? Exactly.

In the Khakasis region of Russia there are mines in the town of Chernogorodskiy, where a lump of coal containing a machined metal gear was found. This lump of coal had the gear embedded in it – the coal is 300-million years old. Researchers who analyzed the gear observed it was…
“very much like a toothed metal rail, created artificially. It was like parts [that] are often used in microscopes, various technical and electronic devices,”
Geologists also discovered … “[It] was found to be composed of 98 percent aluminum and 2 percent magnesium,” which led to the implication that the metallic object was created artificially.

 

I always love seeing the response "it's all bull" and "you don't understand the scientific method" as if saying such things makes any difference.
 
I make no claims that anything posted here is the truth, nor should anyone. Fortunately, as this is the Belief and Spirituality section, not the Science section, such posts are as valid as any other.
 
Now, rather than throw in the "I've got it all figured out" responses, at least my latest post contains a little in the way of research, sources, to work with.
 
If you're so sure there is absolutely no truth to any of it, that in your limited experience on this earth you already believe there is no reason to consider any other perspective, then I'm very sorry for your loss. Seems the system has already done its job well.