Since the publication of my last book of the Trilogy ‘Dawn of the Lost Civilisation,’ I have received a large amount of ‘unqualified’ criticism of the content (particularly on the anonymous comments on social media) as I dare to look at aspects of history that the historical ‘propaganda’ machine (driven by academics) attempt to discredit any research that questions the ‘dated’ theories of yesteryear, by the simple minded branding such content as ‘pseudoscience’ without any qualification or logical justification.
As a scientist (mathematician*), I welcome all ‘constructive criticism’ as it is the essence of expanding knowledge and fine turning any hypothesis, which by their very nature are not (and could never be 100% accurate) as the word ‘hypothesis’ suggests its a working theory and not the completed work (otherwise it would be just termed Theory).
Science is about questioning what is known, as it is understood from History that current knowledge is not a ‘SCIENTIFIC FACT’ but just a supposition which over time will change and become more accurate through questioning the details of these ideas over time and the inevitable future scientific discoveries – but this is not the case in archaeology.
Constructive criticism comes in ‘rebuking’ all or parts of a hypothesis with other evidence that questions the conclusion or its assumptions. Sadly, this tried and tested technique has been replaced with name-calling and slogan rants within the social media context and in some more absurd attempts to undermine the research, the construction of the vocabulary, grammar, or the article’s location.
This censorship is also practised in scientific journals and websites either by blanket failure to publish contrary evidence or by claiming a liberal attitude and then demanding excessive peer-reviewed endorsements before consideration. In some instances, they encourage the simplistic labelling of these ideas as ‘pseudoscience’ and academic punishment at university for any student that dares suggest such ideas in their assignments – as I have experienced over many years.
Moreover, these education establishments have failed to teach their students basic scientific principles of ‘critical analysis’ and ‘deductive logic’ when examining primary sources, demanding their students rely on secondary sources (opinions) of an accepted, highly vetted reading list – which therefore favours the current simplistic traditional theories. Consequently, this allows them to concentrate their energies on the establishment’s primary concern for ‘bums on seats’ to secure funding for future financial security, rather than the higher principle of progressive education – questioning the validity of the certificates and qualifications awarded.
The establishment over-reliance on ‘peer-review’ as a conformity standard of credibility has not only been recognised by myself within my most recent Honours degree in History, but moreover by Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, who said that:
“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.”
So, what elements of the book that has caused such unscientific discussion?
As an example, I used the word ‘Atlantis’ within my books to explanation who were the builders of the Megalithic structures of Northern Europe, including Stonehenge. Well, the word suddenly produces heaps of irrational comments and nonsense suggesting (some of a personal nature) as if I had brought the subject of extraterrestrial ‘Aliens’ into the conversation.
This is where the common perception of history and reality suddenly clashes into incoherent nonsense. Inferior educated individuals (including some qualified academics, sadly!) have accepted the Hollywood and television versions of Atlantis as scientific fact. But unfortunately, these storylines are far away from the classic writings of Plato – which most people fail to realise is the ONLY known reference to this civilisation.
Plato’s most famous line from ‘Timaeus’ a dialogue between Critias and Socrates, in which Critias tells a family story about the Greek Statesman Solon. The latter took a sabbatical to study and converse with the most scholarly of Egyptian priests during a visit to Sais in Egypt in about 590BC, one of the oldest cities in Egypt’s old kingdom. These priests claimed to have access to secret records about a lost civilisation called Atlantis, which only they were allowed to read, for it was written on the pillars within their most sacred temple. Sais worshipped the city’s patron goddess Neith, whose cult is attested and dates back as early as the 1st Dynasty (3100- 3050 BCE).
The classic writings of Plato are very exact (as are most of his works), yet academics have ignored the substance of the tale for their own ‘interpretation’ of what they think Plato really meant to write (as if he had an off day). Such disingenuous acts are hard to qualify and could only be successfully achieved if all his other works were equally dismissed as fabrication and exaggeration? Moreover, I know none of these ‘experts’ who would also question if the man called ‘Socrates’ (that appeared in the same dialogue) ever existed, but they ask to accept some characters from the dialogues but not others?
The ‘experts’ ask the viewers to accept the reinterpretation of not only the relocation of Atlantis, it’s time period and the politics and culture of this society – in short the archaeologists have rewritten the tale from scratch – without any evidence to support the rewrite, to justify their research.
Moreover, would be accept such nonsense from any other field such as Physics… ‘what Einstein really meant is that the universe is very small and can fit in your pocket… but the politics of his time only allowed him to spin it differently’???
This same instutional ‘bias’ can be seen in modern archaeology excavations. These are no longer undertaken as independent, open-minded observations in there own right, but to support the propaganda and theories put forward by academics who fear failure, credibility and consequential funding.
This is recently seen best in recent years at the quarry site for the bluestone for Stonehenge (Craig Rhos-Y-Felin). As a piece of scientific research, we would have expected the professionals to approach it as a ‘blank page’ of knowledge open to interpretation depending on the results? This approach is reinforced by our understanding of Stonehenge, which over the last 300 years has been re-dated many times from a Roman Solar Temple (the druids still believe this to be true?) to a Megalithic Monument of the Neolithic Period (a massive span of over 3500 years). This would typically indicate that more detailed work has to be undertaken to finalise any construction date.
Yet the lead archaeologist spent many years not analysing the forty or so carbon dates from the site to construct a timeline of use for the site and consequently the probable date of the Bluestones to Stonehenge – but to extract just two ‘flimsy’ nutcase dates in an effort to support his previous theories on the dating of Stonehenge.
This is ‘Bad Science’ as the conclusion came before the excavation. Moreover, even when he attempted this ego trip date from the excavation, he found the nutshells to be 500 years BEFORE his well-publicised dates, and so the ‘establishments’ credible ‘expert’ created a scenario of a ‘lost stone circle’ to keep this flawed propaganda date alive – you really could not make this up?
Within my book, I look at the builders of the Megalithic Monuments of Northern Europe and follow their DNA group to find a (once believed) sub-species of humanity called ‘Cro-Magnon’ man. This species was seen (by the Victorian age archaeologists that first found their bones in Southern Europe) as ‘giants’ as they were, on average, about 6′ 6″ tall (compared to their 5′ 4″ average height in that period.
The world Giant is subjective, like the world Atlantis and some academics draw an incorrect conclusion to this world. They even question if such sized me as I portrayed as our ancestors could have ever existed – even though such men (with same DNA link) live in our society and appear daily on our TV screens even TODAY?
The problem with these self-proclaimed ‘experts’ is that their perception of the past is dated by the archaeological propaganda of the past and their inability to understand that history is not a ‘linear’ progression but more of a sine wave with progress and regression as a natural form of evolution.
This flawed concept of linear timelines can easily be seen with houses in Britain over history. In the ‘Bronze/Iron Age’ Britons reportedly lived in Mud Huts with reed roofs – but when the Romans came, we evolved to brick houses with underfloor heating and baths. Only to go back to Mud Huts again in the dark ages. In fact, underfloor heating was only reintroduced some 1600 years later!!
This sine wave effect can also be seen in the human statue. Our prehistoric cousins had a ‘perfect diet’ for humanity and consequently grew to mankind’s maximum potential height and weight (survival of the fittest, according to Darwin).
Then agriculture was introduced in the Neolithic period and shrank humanity – as dairy products and crops may be advantageous for high population growth but is bad for your height and statue (hence Romans and Victorians being average 5’4″ high.
Due to added vitamins, our diet has now recovered more, but we are still some 10% smaller than our ancestors. But, like most past societies, height can range from the smallest to extreme and athletes (who have a high protein diet) like our ancestors and consequently grow to the proportions I suggest in my book.
So, are we living in a LAND OF GIANTS? or are archaeologists and historians using this phase to hide behind their ignorance of our history and the evolution of humanity – here is my list of just ‘normal-sized Giants who are still genetically connected to the R1B DNA Cro-Magnon ancestors:
Richie Gray – 6′ 10″ – 280 lbs (Scotland international rugby union player)
Rory Arnold – 6′ 10″ – 280 lbs (Australian professional rugby union player)
Luke Charteris – 6′ 10″ – 275lb (Retired rugby union player who represented Wales)
Martin Christopher Bayfield – 6′ 10″ – 275 lbs (English actor, broadcaster and rugby player)
Devin Toner – 6′ 11″ – 280 lbs (Professional rugby player)
Richard Metcalfe – 7′ 0″ – 290 lbs (Scottish rugby union player)
Tyson Fury – 6’ 9” – 300 to 480 lbs (British Heavyweight Boxer)
As we can see from the list – to judge these people today as ‘giants’ is disingenuous and an attempt to crush research in favour of nonsense propaganda that doesn’t wish to question our perceived but wholly unproven history.
We also need to consider that these ‘giants’ have a more petite frame to Cro-Magnons as this is the result of crossbreeding of Sapiens and Neanderthals whose chest and bone structure was far greater than modern man and hence, they would be some 10 – 20 % heavier.
This piece of Archaeological nonsense is a complete article in itself. But just to point out that the reason the ‘Cro-Magnons’ we absorbed politically into Western hunter-gathers (WHG) – is that DNA blew apart the academic teachings of the last 100 years with this idea of constant invasion and conquest bring their life-stales and possession (beaker people is the classic) what we have found is that the original DNA of the Mesolithic (Megalithic People) did was not eradicated just was pushed west and survived in Ireland and western Scotland and Wales.
But the original concept of the HG is the African Native with a spear walking from an open plain to open grassland, which we know is total nonsense as the environment was full of waterlogged land and trees (so you could walk anywhere without being eaten by the bears, wolfs and wildcats that outnumber humans by 60 to 1) so they used boats as Star Carr has shown, to move from shoreline town to shoreline trading places (archaeological sites) – sadly when archaeologists are proven to be wrong, there is never an admittance but a variation of the same old theme to save face – just like politicians!! And a pretence that they knew that all alone (but never published the fact)!!
Let’s all hope that in this ‘post-truth’ age, we can eventually reinvigorate and fund our education system so that we no longer chun out paper ‘experts’ who have only the ability to quote secondary sources but also can do so to look at primary sources and interpret them with an unbiased scientific methodology.
For more information about British Prehistory and other articles/books, go to our BLOG WEBSITE for daily updates or our VIDEO CHANNEL for interactive media and documentaries. The TRILOGY of books that ‘changed history’ can be found with chapter extracts at DAWN OF THE LOST CIVILISATION, THE STONEHENGE ENIGMA and THE POST-GLACIAL FLOODING HYPOTHESIS. Other associated books are also available such as 13 THINGS THAT DON’T MAKE SENSE IN HISTORY and other ‘short’ budget priced books can be found on our AUTHOR SITE. For active discussion on the findings of the TRILOGY and recent LiDAR investigations that is published on our WEBSITE you can join our FACEBOOK GROUP.
To understand why rivers were larger in the past we have video with all the relevant information.
* Mathematicians involved with solving problems with applications in real life are called applied mathematicians. Applied mathematicians are mathematical scientists who, with their specialised knowledge and professional methodology, approach many of the imposing problems presented in related scientific fields.