I love when you post on this topic.:)
I'm going to have to call bullshit on this one. I'm a professionally trained archaeologist and this stuff pops up all the time. The dating process is so poorly understood by laymen, that it is easy to fool the general populace. Sorry to be a bummer. I have no problem with changing how we look at our origins, but his stuff is BS. What would the point of this conspiracy be? How would archaeologists profit from hiding a "secret reality"? O.K. rant over.
Not a bummer.I think your reaction is kinda what they're talking about. Certain topics get people fired up. It's not deliberate, and they even state that in the video. It's the point that a structure has been built which supports the current belief system, and any deltas to that system have the potential for being ignored or dismissed as erroneous without fully and impartially testing them. The case of archeologist Virginia Steen-McIntyre is a great example of this...and it's very well-documented. I find this stuff fascinating.
For anyone interested in censorship in the scientific community, here's a really great article:http://www.suppressedscience.net/censorship-medicine.html
Thanks for that link, Rot. My husband will LOVE it! He's a scientist and always loves doubting the scientific structure that exists.And don't EVEN get us started on peer-reviews. Lol.
And while I'm thinking about it, here's a trailer for a film called House of Numbers:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsOlVF_7bRc
Wow, that movie is going to spark debate. It comes at an interesting time. Lately, I haven't heard much about AIDS in the United States, like we used to hear in the 90's. I wonder if it is because of lack of cases, or better medication to control it? Anyway, gets me thinking. Thanks.
I worked 14 hours today and am too tired to address this, but I'd like to have an informed conversation on this topic. It is very interesting and very controversial. Two of my favorite topics!
Found this quote by an editor of a British medical journal:"The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."
^LOL,I love it! That's awesome!
Post a Comment