The more I read and the more real world experiences I acquire I cannot help but realize that there is a titanic disconnect from the academic world and the real world. There is no other system like it on the planet where a scientist/professor might be 100% correct, but because his “colleagues” do not agree with him or his work, his ideas are not accepted. I find it interesting that 90 or so years ago the Special Theory of Relativity was the revolutionary new theory that was going to explain, in part how the universe worked. It was widely accepted by almost every physicists in the field and was the leading theory until recently. Now there have been many experiments done to disprove the Special theory of Relativity. However General Relativity from my quick research is still accepted but there are problems that arise when trying to mesh this theory with Quantum Mechanics. The simplest way it was explained to me was that G.R. deals with things that are really big and have a lot of mass like planets. On the other hand Q.M. deals with things that are very small like atoms and photons and such. Scientist are trying to find the a theory the encompasses both of these aspects of the universe and thus far have been unsuccessful. When trying to combine these two theories they break down rather quickly. I was just trying to give an example about how what is generally accepted as fact with time may end up being wrong. Now I know that when dealing with theories about the universe has to be taken with a large grain of salt. These theories are mostly limited by our technology, or lack thereof. As technology gets better and better new and better experiments can be performed to test a lot of these theories. I understand that and it makes sense. Now, when looking at other theories such as the birth of civilization and debating when the great Pyramids or the Sphinx were built the academic world acts like a bunch of stuck up school children. As far as I know, and I am by no means an expert on the subject, the Pyramids at Giza are believed to have been built by Kufu and were completed around 2500 BC. Generally most scholars, Egyptologist and archeologist accept this as fact as there evidence points to these conclusions, but there is also evidence pointing to the contrary. However, after a little searching on the subject I found quite a lot of evidence suggesting that the construction of the Great Pyramid could be much older and was not built by Kufu or during the 4th Dynasty. Honestly from my brief research I think that we really do not know who built them. Scholars are just using their best guess. The reason for leaning toward Kufu as the builder is because his name was found in one of the many chambers in the Great Pyramid. Some Egyptologist believe these markings that translated to Kufu’s name were faked. There is other evidence that Kufu simply built on top of what was already there, “inheriting” the site. Still other theories say that the pyramids and the Sphinx were built around the time of the last ice age (10,000 bc) while evidence exist to back them up as well. Now what I find very interesting is that the theories saying that both monuments, the Great Pyramid and Sphinx, were built around 10,000 years ago are widely dismissed as a farce among the academic and Egyptologist community. Why is that? The theory has evidence to back up its claim and in my opinion is just as plausible if not more so than finding a kings name in a burial chamber inside the great pyramid. A geologist examined the weathering on the Sphinx and found that it showed signs of heavy water damage. The Sphinx is located in Egypt in the Sahara Desert, one of the driest places on the planet. How would anything there have signs of heavy water damage? Well around 10,000 bc the climate in Egypt was very different and much wetter, the theory claims, than it is today. Putting the evidence together the geologist concluded that for this type of erosion to occur the Sphinx must have been built far earlier than what mainstream Egyptologist think. Also, there is a tablet or “’Inventory stele” that was found near the Sphix. When it was translated it said that Kufu found the Sphinx, buried up to its neck with sand, and the Great Pyramid at the site and simply restored them. Any Egyptologist will tell you that even if the markings with Kufu’s name are genuine it does not prove that Kufu built the Great Pyramid. In an article I read they said it would be similar to someone in the future finding Banksy’s name spray painted on the side of the Eifel Tower, and then giving him credit for building it. So then why is he given credit, and the other theories thrown out? I could go on all day about this, but the point I am trying to make is that there is such a HUGE disconnect between the academic world and the real world, where the rest of the population lives. My parents spend an enormous sum on my college education and I feel that it was without a doubt a waste of money. I use almost nothing I learned from my college courses and honestly can only remember a handful of things that have helped me in the work place. So why is a four year college degree held with such high esteem? (I was a finance major, and am trying to become a writer. That makes total sense, right??) I could do my current job with a high school education, in fact every job that I have had since I graduated I could have performed adequately without a four year college degree. The weird thing about all this is that I would not have been hired for any of these positions without that expensive piece of paper. I think our system is flawed beyond belief in this aspect. If I had children that were high school seniors I cannot say that I would be pushing them to go to college. I truly believe it is a waste of money in today’s market. I have talked to hiring managers about this situation and one told me that a college degree says to them that you are moderately intelligent and can be trained. It was all I could do not to laugh. So I, or my parents, have to spend more than $60, 000 (and that was with a scholarship) to prove to a future employer that I can be trained? WOW! This idea of credibility is a huge factor in the academic world. Graham Hancock who wrote Fingerprints of the Gods, which is a good read, you should check it out if you get a chance. In the book he talks about an ancient civilization, and by ancient I mean really ancient. Most scholars believe the first civilization started around 5,500 years ago with the Sumerians. That is what is generally accepted and I think most history books would say that if you picked one up. Now Hancock believes that there was an older civilization that every culture can trace their history back to, like 10,000 to 12,000 years or older. The reason this is revolutionary is because the earth was still in an ice age during this time period. Most historians and archeologist discredit Hancock and do not take seriously any of his theories. Hancock also says that most archeological records are wrong or incomplete at best. I would agree 100% with the incomplete part. How can you say that someone is without a doubt wrong when you know you are missing data? Recently this topic has cause much debate and I think the norm is shifting. A temple in Turkey called Göbekli Tepe has been excavated and had been dated to the 10th to 8th millennium BC. Now I do not think this is the smoking gun that Hancock was looking for but I do think it raised a lot of questions about civilization and how the academic community operates. Despite Hancock being discredited and his theory not taken seriously, this site in Turkey points to the fact that there is so much that we do not know even about our own past. (That is depressing I know.) What makes me mad is that even if a theory is outlandish that it is nonetheless a theory and as long as you have enough evidence to get it off the ground it should be taken seriously. But we all know that that is not how it works. It seems like scientist and the academic types are afraid to rock the boat when it comes to these issues. I would almost guarantee that if you picked up a high school or grade school history book it would say that Sumerians were the first civilization. Well that is not entirely true, the site in Turkey says otherwise. Sumerians are credited with inventing writing, but I think the site in Turkey says that these people, whoever they were had some knowledge and were intelligent. They were masons, capable of carving intricate pillars, I would think they also had some knowledge of math and numbers that they used to built the temple. The only issue here is they did not write anything down so they are very hard to study. There are a ton of other theories that are not taken seriously like the Ancient Astronaut theory. I know it is a reach and there is little evidence to support it. But the fact that respected archeologist in the field are so quick to dismiss it makes me mad. At the end of the day, yes it is farfetched but I do not care what your credentials are, you do not know the truth any more than I do. They think they do because the evidence they have gathered points a certain way, but they do not have all the pieces as I stated above. All the legends ancient cultures have about “star people” or “beings from the stars,” are probably no more than stories to help explain their existence. But what if there is some fact behind those stories and what if these “star people” came and gave ancient man some knowledge then covered all their tracks as they left. It bothers me that the brightest minds on the planet would laugh openly at any theory that involved aliens. Yet just looking at the numbers aspect aliens almost certainly do exist and I would imagine that most individuals, scientific or not, would agree with that statement. So if that is the case it is possible they could have visited the planet, YES, I think it is possible, although very highly improbably, and near unlikely. The point is that at the end of the day we do not know. Even Stephen Hawking admitted he was wrong about his theory of black holes.
Pride and arrogance are terrible things.