• Mr. Varga

Hiding History: Common Distortions of Truth

Updated: Jan 11, 2019

In our first presentation we used a comparative analysis to highlight breakdowns in methodology occurring in academic based History and Archeology.

This Video will examine some common forms of systemic methodological error in the field of human origins. Alternative thinkers, with good reason, are quick to point out the methodological shortcomings of mainstream Academia . These errors, however, can occur in any group whose motivation is to adhere to their theoretical framework instead of following the evidence. I refer to these as systemic pressures. Here are some common forms or examples:

1) Professional Motives-- Speaking generally, in any ideological group, there are pressures on members to adhere to its central viewpoints. All of these groups display this trait in varying degrees. This lends itself to cohesion among members but also produces homogeneity of opinion. Limitations on freedom of thought can be a systemic source of error as evidence that may fall outside of the theory may not receive due consideration.

To digress briefly, the Three of the most dominant theoretical perspectives we see in the field of human origins are: 1) The Darwinian ( or Traditional Academic)Paradigm ;2) Ancient Astronaut ( or Alien)Theory (Interventionism) and 3) the Biblical (Creationist)Perspective (centering on the book of Genesis and the role of “Fallen Angels”)( This is somewhat related to “intelligent design”). All three are compelling theories. They are, however, two-edged swords: while they explain much of the data, they might distort it as well if the data doesn’t quite conform to the paradigm. For example, what is the Darwinian paradigm to make of the abnormally large brain cavities we see exhibited in the “ Paracas Skulls”. Not unexpectedly, they have not taken up this challenge since the very existence of these skulls contradicts the Darwinian notion of the evolution of brain capacity reaching its culmination in Homo sapiens.

Returning to our topic, it is important to realize that leading proponents of all three viewpoints have carved out careers for themselves based on their adherence and advocacy of these theories in books, TV, Radio or internet. If a proponent veers too far from the central beliefs of his perspective, he may not enjoy the professional benefits of that group much longer. This is most obvious in traditional Academia. I refer you to the controversial documentary by Ben Stein entitled “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” In it we find examples of disciplinary actions taken by Universities and Museums against the careers of educators in traditional academia who introduce an “Intelligent Design” perspective.

2) Ignoring Evidence There can be no display of method poorer than insisting that the facts must fit the theory. Traditional Academia has a long history of ignoring fossils or Artifacts that don’t fit into the almost fixed timeline established by the Darwinian/evolutionary Paradigm. In order to achieve this, their may also be an attempt to discredit the truthfulness of the archeologist, to discredit his findings , or, in extreme cases, to even steal and “lose” findings. There are many examples of these practices, but one that stands out is the case of Virginia Steen-McIntyre and the “ Hueyatlaco Saga”

Any Theories or timelines should be subject to revision based on new and properly examined evidence. Indeed, since all the evidence is never in and we can never know the past perfectly, there should always be a flexible theory and moveable timeline. Mainstream Archeologists would argue that to change the timeline for one or two anomalous findings would be to go against the sum total of accumulated knowledge. What we know, however , is that the “ sum total “ is not quite accurate to begin with. This accumulation of results has been acquired all along, with dubious selective methods.

Researcher Michael Cremo has gone to great lengths to establish that artifacts or fossils whose dates do not jive with acceptable archeological timelines are attacked discredited or ignored. Moreover, this practice has gone on since the 19thcentury in mainstream academia. Cremo summarizes: “It is only by eliminating a great quantity of evidence—keeping only fossils and artifacts that conform to preconceived notions—that one can construct an evolutionary sequence. Such unwarranted elimination of evidence…. represents a kind of deception carried out by scientists desiring to maintain a certain theoretical point of view. This deception is…. the inevitable outcome of social processes of knowledge filtration operating within the scientific community.”

3) Implied Cultural Bias Adherence to a particular theoretical perspective may subtly imply the inferiority of other worldviews including those of traditional cultures. As such, the products of those cultures are often not taken as historical record, but as stories for entertainment or to be understood as symbolic. This can be a source of error. Cremo subscribes to the view that, based on the suppressed evidence, modern man occupied Earth well before Western archeologists said he did. Incidentally, he points out, this is the view of traditional Hindu culture recorded in the Vedas and other Hindu holy books. Western Academia has never taken this view seriously and has eschewed a literal treatment of the Hindu Holy books.

Another example is more familiar. The Old Testament of the Bible is a cornerstone of our Western Culture. Much of this book, however, is understood by many in academia as a collection of stories whose purpose is to impart a religious and moral education. One of the most fantastic of these stories is the worldwide flood. In 2009 , a group of academic Scientists provided an abundance of evidence that suggested an impact by a comet about 13,000 years ago triggered a global flood .The date of this flood, according to ice core samples and other geologic evidence, corresponded to the date in the Bible. This event is accepted science (although still debated ) called the Younger Dryas. I refer you to the works of Randall Carlson and Graham Hancock. (Incidentally, other traditional cultures also state that a great flood occurred at the same time.)

4) Having Answers Especially evident in academia, there seems to be a compulsion to always have an explanation for phenomena….even when we don’t understand.This has resulted in some farfetched explanations for phenomena that seem beyond explanation according to our current framework.

Look no further for this than Academia’s inadequate explanation for how the great Pyramids were built. Modern engineers and stone masons will admit that today they would be very hard pressed to cut the stones with the precision that the pyramids stones were cut. The stones will then have to be lifted and fitted together without mortar and will be precisely aligned to points on the earth and in the stars in ways we are only beginning to comprehend. We are also expected to believe that this was achieved by supervised slave labor with rudimentary tools. We are not even discussing the “Sacred Geometry” that is displayed in these works which serve as a signature or “fingerprint” (to borrow Graham Hancock’s term)of a forgotten but very advanced builder culture that has left its imprint throughout the world.

In conclusion this video has presented some ways in which differing ideological systems operate to distort the truth.

Thank you for watching and please subscribe to Hiding History to receive our upcoming videos.

2 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All