Throughout the most recent year, I firmly helped a partner record as a hard copy a progression of ten articles covering different parts of my antiquated space explorer hypothesis. Every one of the tens of those articles flowed generally all over the planet and view counters on many destinations showed ample readership, yet criticism to me, or her, from anyplace, was non-existent. There was neither analysis nor praise from anybody.
Simply quietness. I was beginning to imagine that maybe nobody in the world needs to view old space travelers extremely. While trying to gain some headway, I chose to pay sixty dollars for an audit of my antiquated space explorer site. This was to be a survey by doubters; an audit by New Age devotees would be useless.
Their blog's portrayal was "basic audits of paranormal cases on the Internet." The mediator conceded them five days to play out their survey however that has since a long time ago come and gone, and only silence from them. My site presents a huge measure of proof and, in truth, I was unable to anticipate that anybody should deliver a decent basic survey in only five days.
Nobody, including myself, would need to see immediately ready and paltry contentions, else I would make them look crazy in my counter contentions. Also, a portion of my proof comes from Spanish-language sources and, to begin, they would require time to confirm that none of it is a scam. They are welcome to constantly what they need.
What's in store from this blog is questionable. Some doubters are as biased in their suspecting as their New Age partners, and afterward, once more, there are cynics, similar to me, who dispassionately assess the proof to show up at reality. Might it be said that there was a genuine old space explorer? To assist the doubters with addressing that inquiry, I will give them a few thoughts on the best way to discredit my hypotheses.
Here, exclusively for space contemplations, I will focus on the archeological proof, passing on aside thoughts on the best way to discredit the cryptology and philosophy proof for one more day. My site recreates etchings from the Tiwanaku development in Bolivia. One of those inscriptions portrays the supposed antiquated space traveler as an amphibian with a three-pronged tail, with every one of the three prongs finishing in a case.
How do the cynics invalidate that? Simple. They essentially need to exhibit that the state of those units takes after some type of creature or vegetation to be found around there. As such, they need to track down an earthbound hotspot for those etchings, in any case, my extraterrestrial contentions stay safe. The circumstance of the Tiwanaku sky-god drawings matches with the circumstance of the Nazca Lines in Peru, so the old space traveler of the two spots must be very much the same. For Nazca, the doubters will track down many instant contentions, however, I think about every one of the feeble.
The mindset of individuals of Nazca can't be thought to be remarkable in mankind's set of experiences. It must be shown that individuals somewhere else additionally trusted that the sun, moon, or sky-spirits had actual eyes that could notice ground drawings. On the other hand, it must be shown that individuals of Nazca revered birds, trusting them to have mental insight.
The recorded inscriptions on the cosmological Sun Disk, asserted outsider ancient rarity, may end up being the greatest test for the doubters.
How are we to accept that the Andeans of the mid-sixteenth century a) realized that the Earth was round, b) realized that it was feasible to circle the Earth, c) realized that daylight striking the moon could reflect to strike a spaceship, d) realized that the foreboding shadows along the Milky Way held stars inside, and e) realized that water shaped the premise of plant and creature advancement? Here the cynics would have to track down matches throughout the entire existence of western civilization. I anticipate their reaction.
You must be logged in to post a comment.