85 of 89 people found the following review helpful
This review is from: The Hidden History of the Human Race: The Condensed Edition of "Forbidden Archeology" (Paperback)
This book exposes the deplorable manner in which the so-called elite of archeology simply dismiss overwhelming evidence of greater antiquity of man (for instance, "modern" artefacts discovered in strata dated to 300 million years ago) because it doesn't fit existing data.
Yes, it can be dry reading at times, as it is very repetitive, but it is not boring. All in all, it is highly informative, and has opened my mind to the idea of a new timeline for human evolution. Cremo and Thompson do a tremendous job of exposing the high degree of subjectivity that is involved in screening and evaluating evidence of the presence and lineage of modern man. They credibly call into question the established timeline and path of human evolution, and do a good job of it. The open-minded nature of their approach is unusually refreshing in a field typically defined by unreasonably hardened opinions and condescension.
This book combines a vast amount of both accepted and controversial evidence from the archeological record with sociological, philosophical, and historical critiques of the scientific method to challenge existing views and expose the suppression of information concerning history and human origins. The authors should be congratulated, because they spent eight years producing the only definitive, precise, exhaustive and complete record of practically all the fossil finds of man, regardless of whether they fit the established scientific theories or not. NO other book of this calibre exists. It should be compulsory reading for every first year biology, archeology and anthropology student and many others, too!
The authors exhibit tremendous courage in including all reports from the past two centuries that can be considered credible based on eye-witness accounts. When it exists, they also present contrary opinion. Rigid conclusions are generally avoided and the readers are left to decide for themselves how to interpret the evidence. Criticism of this book ironically follows the same sort of strategy that the authors discredit - namely that full attention is given to the weakest evidence, while the stronger is ignored.
Some of the negative reviews appear to be attempts to STOP people from reading this material. But the more people know about anything the less dictatorial they become on that subject. That is why real scientists tread the ground carefully. True science knows its limitations. The great scientists are humble and conservative. They know the difference between theory and fact. They distrust themselves and their findings. Perhaps as a first step our textbooks should be more realistic and honest about what we know (really very very little) and don't know.
No, I am not a creationist. Nor am I a Darwinist. Both views are seriously flawed. The truth probably lies somewhere between...
Later note: Source Field Investigations by Wilcock includes some amazing new scientific information about DNA and evolution. There's also the fascinating alien/hybrid origins of mankind explained in Shannon Dorey's three books, starting with "The Master of Speech". And there's Icke's best, so far, "Perception Deception" which refers to this book.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-6 of 6 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 13 Apr 2011 22:24:01 BDT
J. H. Campbell says:
Posted on 22 Aug 2011 15:15:36 BDT
Last edited by the author on 22 Aug 2011 15:17:16 BDT
Ive seen some really great documentaries on YOUTUBE about historical and archaeological anomalies that cant be explained, so they simply ignore them. Why are humans so different from every other living creature on the planet, self aware. I can't see why Alien intervention, is such a tab-boo, subject this is why people like Dawkin annoy me as much as the Holy roller's.
In reply to an earlier post on 17 Feb 2013 12:48:24 GMT
Last edited by the author on 20 Feb 2013 08:24:54 GMT
C. W. Bradbury says:
Dawkins and his followers are no different to the old-time prophets and their 'faithfull believers'; he's looked at some seriously complex historical/archaelogical evidence, made some sense of it by ignoring whole swathes of 'anomalies' which might contradict his opinions; then gone public in the Media as 'The voice of Reason' IE mouthpiece for today's 'Politically Correct' orthodoxy; just as Lysenko did in Soviet Russia. The truth is that Dawkins can be no more certain about his opinions than can David Icke, Zecharia Sitchin or Erich Von Danieken, all of whom can make a good case by using some (but not all) of the highly contradictory 'evidence' available.
In reply to an earlier post on 10 Mar 2013 21:06:06 GMT
[Deleted by the author on 10 Mar 2013 21:06:39 GMT]
In reply to an earlier post on 10 Mar 2013 21:06:56 GMT
[Deleted by the author on 10 Mar 2013 21:07:28 GMT]
In reply to an earlier post on 23 Apr 2014 19:07:33 BDT
Catherine coney says:
All flaws are significant.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›