Alex Jones Rant: DMT Elves Control Global Elites

[Searcher08]

Quick copypasta from a Jim Marrs site

All this was confirmed by Col. Matthew Bogdanos in early 2004. Col. Bogdanos headed an investigation of the looting as deputy director for the Joint Interagency Coordination Group originally assigned to seek out weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. After gaining permission from General Tommy Franks, the group probed the museum looting.
In an interview published in the January/February issue of Archeology, Col. Bogdanos was asked what is still missing from the Iraqi National Museum. He replied, “You have the public gallery from which originally 40 exhibits were taken. We’ve recovered 11. Turning to the storage rooms, there were about 3,150 pieces taken from those, and that’s almost certainly by random and indiscriminant looters. Of those, we’ve recovered 2,700. So there’s about 400 of these pieces, excavated pieces, missing.
“The final group is from the basement. The basement is what we’ve been calling the inside job. And I will say it forever like a mantra: it is inconceivable to me that the basement was breached and the items stolen without an intimate insider’s knowledge of the museum. From there about 10,000 pieces were taken. We’ve only recovered 650, approximately.”
When the looting began on April 17, 2003, one Iraqi archaeologist summoned U.S. troops to protect the national museum. Five Marines accompanied the man to the museum and chased out some looters by firing shots over their heads. However, after about 30 minutes, the soldiers were ordered to withdraw and the looters soon returned.
Apparently the only building in Baghdad to receive full American protection was the Ministry of Oil.
“Not since the Taliban embarked on their orgy of destruction against the Buddhas of Bamiyan and the statutes in the museum of Kabul - perhaps not since World War II - have so many archaeological treasures been wantonly and systematically smashed to pieces,” reported British newsman Robert Fisk, who toured the museum shortly after the incident.
The preventable looting prompted three members of the White House Cultural Property Advisory Committee to resign, disgusted that the alerted American military had failed to protect the Mesopotamian treasures. “This tragedy was not prevented, due to our nation’s inaction,” wrote committee chairman Martin E. Sullivan in his resignation letter.

[Canadian_watcher]

I realise the thread is moving along at a nice clip, but try not to completely divorce my comments from the context in which they were made. You said:

we DO know that exploration of many archeological sites *is* pretty much forbidden. Okay, people are allowed to go there, but no serious scholars or scientists of repute venture into certain places. Why not?

So we are talking here about known archeological sites and the idea that access to many of them is either pretty much fobidden, or that serious scholars or scientists simply do not go there. And then, when prompted, you gave two examples which I commented upon, Yonaguni Monument and the Bosnian pyramids. We were not discussing the idea that there may exist unknown archeological treasures as yet undiscovered by man into which no serious scholars or scientists of repute venture. See? Let's keep the goalposts in one spot, if possible.

I see your point and I think, yes, I'm guilty of that. Sorry.

But here's what I can dig up (he he) regarding 'scholarly investigation' of the Bosnian Pyramid:

Science 22 December 2006:
Vol. 314 no. 5807 p. 1862
DOI: 10.1126/science.314.5807.1862a
NEWS OF THE WEEK
ARCHAEOLOGY
Researchers Helpless as Bosnian Pyramid Bandwagon Gathers Pace
John Bohannon
LONDON-- Last week, the European Association of Archaeologists published an open letter to the Bosnian government calling Semir Osmanagić's alleged discovery of 12,000-year-old pyramids in Bosnia "a cruel hoax on an unsuspecting public [which] has no place in the world of genuine science." But Osmanagić's influence and popularity have only grown. (Read more.)

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/314/5807/1862.1.short

Just a small example. I mean for me to go through and find out a who's who of current archaeology and then find out what they think of the Bosnian Pyramids, check to see if anyone's been denied funding, etc, would be a career. Instead I have listened to lots of different perspectives about 'Forbidden Archaeology' ..

Michael Cremo in addition to Graham Hancock. There are others, naturally.

Now, I grant you this: I have not checked to see whether or not Michael Cremo has ever once been in the same room as someone who might believe in things that could possibly be interpreted as being antisemitic. Maybe he has. Maybe he's a cross-dresser. Maybe he used to beat his girlfriends. I don't know.

[Stephen Morgan]

So Catholics aren't the wisdom hiders here.

It's just as bad to adulterate the truth as to hide it.

[Stephen Morgan]

Barracuda was proposing an imperialist explanation, not an occultist one. I agree with Barracuda, we did what imperialists do ... we deleted history. If the enemy is demoralized and left with weaker sense of their historical roots, all the better for the victor.

Not surprisingly, Stephen doesn't see any evidence of imperialism here. But I think it is fairly conclusive. This is what imperialism looks like in real time ... a simple disregard for the history of the conquered. History is made to disappear.

Well, it was looted, call that imperialist if you like, but barracuda was saying that it was a conscious design by the imperialist powers to obliterate the native history, and that's unsupported.

[Stephen Morgan]

we DO know that exploration of many archeological sites *is* pretty much forbidden. Okay, people are allowed to go there, but no serious scholars or scientists of repute venture into certain places. Why not?

For example?

There's more neglect than prohibition. The Afghan settlement of the Graeco-Bactrians are an exception, I suppose.

Yes, I agree but would add that sometimes the motivations behind neglect are the same as those that would be behind prohibition... In the former instance 'they' are just being smarter since prohibition requires effort while neglect does not.

Power from the purse-strings. The pre-Islamic settlements of Arabia, too, if I may go back to examples of prohibited archaeological sites.

[barracuda]

edit: besides, what differentiates one from being a journalist and best-selling author from being a 'serious' scholar/scientist?
The paper? The acceptance of the universities or the MSM? What? Please, enlighten me.

I think it's a matter of training, essentially.

Isn't that a little elitist and part of the overall problem?

There is nothing elitist about training within disciplines of study. The process of becoming an ayahuasca apprentice-shaman usually requires a year or more in rigorous and extreme training in the jungle simply to demonstrate their commitment to the task, before they are then allowed to sit at the side of the shaman and learn the intricasies of the art, which can then take the better part of a lifetime. Similarly, plumbers are required to undergo extensive training and apprenticeship periods before they may expertly take on the challenge of installing your toilet piping. And though you might consider this to be elitist, I would tend to suggest that, as with amateur shamans, you try and avoid amateur plumbers, even though they may, perhaps, be capable of making some startling discoveries.

I tend to believe that some of the training you refer to is counterproductive in a search for new truths. Training often leads people down the same paths over and over while restricting some paths altogether. Training is a form of legislation in many respects, and those who choose to retain their good standing in any professional discipline often make sacrifices in their research for the sake of it.

Some excellent research and analysis have come from the untrained. You know that, so why the argument?

While it is true that some amateurs have made important discoveries, it would be hard to argue that the majority of important discoveries have come from the untrained. Even great amateurs such as Faraday and Schliemann found it necessary to enjoin their original curiosity and passion to a more rigorous study of their fields.

And I wouldn't disqualify a journalist like Hancock from the possiblity of being right, or of making interesting discoveries. But his main thrust of interest at the moment seems to be selling books.

[brainpanhandler]

edit: besides, what differentiates one from being a journalist and best-selling author from being a 'serious' scholar/scientist?
The paper? The acceptance of the universities or the MSM? What? Please, enlighten me.

I think it's a matter of training, essentially.

Isn't that a little elitist and part of the overall problem?

There is nothing elitist about training within disciplines of study. The process of becoming an ayahuasca apprentice-shaman usually requires a year or more in rigorous and extreme training in the jungle simply to demonstrate their commitment to the task, before they are then allowed to sit at the side of the shaman and learn the intricasies of the art, which can then take the better part of a lifetime. Similarly, plumbers are required to undergo extensive training and apprenticeship periods before they may expertly take on the challenge of installing your toilet piping. And though you might consider this to be elitist, I would tend to suggest that, as with amateur shamans, you try and avoid amateur plumbers, even though they may, perhaps, be capable of making some startling discoveries.

I tend to believe that some of the training you refer to is counterproductive in a search for new truths. Training often leads people down the same paths over and over while restricting some paths altogether. Training is a form of legislation in many respects, and those who choose to retain their good standing in any professional discipline often make sacrifices in their research for the sake of it.

Some excellent research and analysis have come from the untrained. You know that, so why the argument?

While it is true that some amateurs have made important discoveries, it would be hard to argue that the majority of important discoveries have come from the untrained. Even great amateurs such as Faraday and Schliemann found it necessary to enjoin their original curiosity and passion to a more rigorous study of their fields.

And I wouldn't disqualify a journalist like Hancock from the possiblity of being right, or of making interesting discoveries. But his main thrust of interest at the moment seems to be selling books.

I'm glad you said that so I didn't have to, (wrote something similar and held off) not that you should have had to.

[Stephen Morgan]

Both Yonaguni Monument and the so-called Bosnian pyramids have been extensively examined and studied by amateurs and academics alike. Realistically there are very nearly no significant archeological sites which have not drawn pretty serious attention and study.

wait a second.. I forgot to call you on this.
I can't figure out how you would know that there are no sites being ignored.

Isn't that like saying that there are no elements that we don't know about?

I realise the thread is moving along at a nice clip, but try not to completely divorce my comments from the context in which they were made. You said:

we DO know that exploration of many archeological sites *is* pretty much forbidden. Okay, people are allowed to go there, but no serious scholars or scientists of repute venture into certain places. Why not?

So we are talking here about known archeological sites and the idea that access to many of them is either pretty much fobidden, or that serious scholars or scientists simply do not go there. And then, when prompted, you gave two examples which I commented upon, Yonaguni Monument and the Bosnian pyramids. We were not discussing the idea that there may exist unknown archeological treasures as yet undiscovered by man into which no serious scholars or scientists of repute venture. See? Let's keep the goalposts in one spot, if possible.

There's plenty of forbidden sites, too. Scheduled Ancient Monuments, and so on, are protected by government which means it's extremely difficult to get even the best digs started. Obviously in dictatorships, there's a lot of difficulty getting to dig in Saudi Arabia, especially with fundamentalist reluctance to examine pre-Islamic archaeology, and in Afghanistan the various successive dictators have kept people out for decades, and the Tarim basin cultures are studied exclusively from a position the Chinese government finds ideologically acceptable, up Chinese Turkestan way. The same, especially under Stalin but before and after too, in Russia, both in "Siberia" and Europe. And Zahi Hawass would only allow his little munchkins into the places he controlled. Most Thracian sites have been ransacked by night-hawks, so no banning needed there. Officially unsupported investigations may have trouble accessing private and publicly-owned land, too, sometimes the case with the New England Ogham stones, and so on.

[Stephen Morgan]

I tend to believe that some of the training you refer to is counterproductive in a search for new truths. Training often leads people down the same paths over and over while restricting some paths altogether. Training is a form of legislation in many respects, and those who choose to retain their good standing in any professional discipline often make sacrifices in their research for the sake of it.

Some excellent research and analysis have come from the untrained. You know that, so why the argument?

While it is true that some amateurs have made important discoveries, it would be hard to argue that the majority of important discoveries have come from the untrained.

The untrained generally have other things to do, while the trained form mercenary armies. I refer you to the recent Fortean Times article on Starlite, they recorded that, I believe it was an aerospace engineering company, most of the inventions came from a couple of blokes without formal educations, and their was an inverse correlation between education and productivity.

Even great amateurs such as Faraday and Schliemann found it necessary to enjoin their original curiosity and passion to a more rigorous study of their fields.

There's a difference between being rigorous and being indoctrinated.

And I wouldn't disqualify a journalist like Hancock from the possiblity of being right, or of making interesting discoveries. But his main thrust of interest at the moment seems to be selling books.

And of every other moment.

[wordspeak2]

"I don't see any goals for our invasion of Iraq aside from resource extraction."

Well, I think that putting in a totally subservient regime was a goal. That would be important- for Iraq to be a colony- in case of coming conflict with Iran. No? Note that most of the oil contracts haven't even gone to American companies.

[barracuda]

But here's what I can dig up (he he) regarding 'scholarly investigation' of the Bosnian Pyramid:

Science 22 December 2006:
Vol. 314 no. 5807 p. 1862
DOI: 10.1126/science.314.5807.1862a
NEWS OF THE WEEK
ARCHAEOLOGY
Researchers Helpless as Bosnian Pyramid Bandwagon Gathers Pace
John Bohannon
LONDON-- Last week, the European Association of Archaeologists published an open letter to the Bosnian government calling Semir Osmanagić's alleged discovery of 12,000-year-old pyramids in Bosnia "a cruel hoax on an unsuspecting public [which] has no place in the world of genuine science." But Osmanagić's influence and popularity have only grown. (Read more.)

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/314/5807/1862.1.short

Just a small example. I mean for me to go through and find out a who's who of current archaeology and then find out what they think of the Bosnian Pyramids, check to see if anyone's been denied funding, etc, would be a career. Instead I have listened to lots of different perspectives about 'Forbidden Archaeology' ..

The issue with the Bosnian "pyramid" is that the amateur and undisciplined excavations by Semir Osmanagić with the intent to prove that these structures are artificial are destroying important archaeological sites which are known to exist in the vicinity of his digs. In all likelyhood, Osmanagić is a hoaxer, so it may be more important to resdearch his methods and see if you agree with what he's doing than to go through that who's who exercise.

Michael Cremo in addition to Graham Hancock. There are others, naturally.

Now, I grant you this: I have not checked to see whether or not Michael Cremo has ever once been in the same room as someone who might believe in things that could possibly be interpreted as being antisemitic. Maybe he has. Maybe he's a cross-dresser. Maybe he used to beat his girlfriends. I don't know.

Cremo is a Hindu creationist who takes a position against evolution, fwiw.

[Canadian_watcher]

edit: besides, what differentiates one from being a journalist and best-selling author from being a 'serious' scholar/scientist?
The paper? The acceptance of the universities or the MSM? What? Please, enlighten me.

I think it's a matter of training, essentially.

Isn't that a little elitist and part of the overall problem?

There is nothing elitist about training within disciplines of study. The process of becoming an ayahuasca apprentice-shaman usually requires a year or more in rigorous and extreme training in the jungle simply to demonstrate their commitment to the task, before they are then allowed to sit at the side of the shaman and learn the intricasies of the art, which can then take the better part of a lifetime. Similarly, plumbers are required to undergo extensive training and apprenticeship periods before they may expertly take on the challenge of installing your toilet piping. And though you might consider this to be elitist, I would tend to suggest that, as with amateur shamans, you try and avoid amateur plumbers, even though they may, perhaps, be capable of making some startling discoveries.

HA! Now who is moving the goalposts? You wrote:

Interesting though he may be, Graham Hancock is a journalist and best-selling author, not a serious scholar or a scientist. You can hardly say, though, that his ideas haven't been widely heard or examined. He's sold well over five-million copies of his books ... and has been featured in several major television series about his exploits and theories in both the US and the UK.

I am not saying training is elitist, but that one's propensity to only trust the conclusions of those who have undergone training is.

That Hancock has been widely heard is somewhat true, as has [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislaw_Burzynski"]Dr. S. Burzinski[/url]... their work hasn't made positive headlines though. Why not? Because your vaunted 'scholars' dismiss them.

I tend to believe that some of the training you refer to is counterproductive in a search for new truths. Training often leads people down the same paths over and over while restricting some paths altogether. Training is a form of legislation in many respects, and those who choose to retain their good standing in any professional discipline often make sacrifices in their research for the sake of it.

Some excellent research and analysis have come from the untrained. You know that, so why the argument?

While it is true that some amateurs have made important discoveries, it would be hard to argue that the majority of important discoveries have come from the untrained. Even great amateurs such as Faraday and Schliemann found it necessary to enjoin their original curiosity and passion to a more rigorous study of their fields.

Perhaps. I mean in times past it did take an extraordinary level of financial comfort in order to carry out that type of rigorous inquiry.. oh wait.. same thing goes for today. So.. we've got an automatic control group problem being that those who are more financially secure are more likely to be "trained" especially in areas of study that are not immediately financially rewarding. And, where you get the odd person who has hard-scrabbled his/her way into a PhD you also get the odd person who cannot risk losing their jobs and hence, they go along with the establishment.

And I wouldn't disqualify a journalist like Hancock from the possiblity of being right, or of making interesting discoveries. But his main thrust of interest seems to be at the moment selling books.

Pardon my french, but Big Effing Deal! Man's gotta eat.

You seem to have yet another prejudice - those who profit are not to be taken seriously.
I think they probably paid Einstein so homey didn't have to sell books.

[Canadian_watcher]

The issue with the Bosnian "pyramid" is that the amateur and undisciplined excavations by Semir Osmanagić with the intent to prove that these structures are artificial are destroying important archaeological sites which are known to exist in the vicinity of his digs.

You can't even say it's a pyramid without putting it in quotes. If that guy who wrote that article, above, were to come around and declare it a pyramid, though, you would too.

In all likelyhood, Osmanagić is a hoaxer, so it may be more important to resdearch his methods and see if you agree with what he's doing than to go through that who's who exercise.

No, if it is so important to you, you do the research. And what's this 'in all likelihood' claim based on? More academics?

Cremo is a Hindu creationist who takes a position against evolution, fwiw.

Difference between C_W and Barracuda: I believe that people can have spiritual beliefs that differ from mine and still be taken seriously in their work.

EDIT: Cremo's co-author on the book Forbidden Archaeology is very well 'trained' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_L._Thompson Thompson is someone you will be able to discount though, since he once belonged to the Hare Krishnas.

*whew* dodged another one, hey? Must be nice in your head, where everything makes sense.

[Laodicean]

Just like to add that I found the Hancock lecture I posted (page 21) fascinating.

[barracuda]

HA! Now who is moving the goalposts? You wrote:

Interesting though he may be, Graham Hancock is a journalist and best-selling author, not a serious scholar or a scientist. You can hardly say, though, that his ideas haven't been widely heard or examined. He's sold well over five-million copies of his books ... and has been featured in several major television series about his exploits and theories in both the US and the UK.

I am not saying training is elitist, but that one's propensity to only trust the conclusions of those who have undergone training is.

Again, you don't seem to be following the conversational strands. You asked me what differentiates a journalist from serious scholar/scientists, and I replied "training". I said nothing about whose conclusions you should trust. Obviously, trust whomever you feel you ought after examining their premises and methods and conclusions. But keep in mind that the training I reference exists at least partly in order that the researcher not repeat mistakes or errors which have been examined in depth by others before him. So there is indeed an element of understanding the breadth of previous inquiry that is understood as having come from training in a discipline.

That Hancock has been widely heard is somewhat true, as has [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislaw_Burzynski"]Dr. S. Burzinski[/url]... their work hasn't made positive headlines though. Why not? Because your vaunted 'scholars' dismiss them.

But Hancock's work has met with a great deal of positive press, as I noted before. (Burzinsky is a quack, imho. If you want to discuss him, find the appropriate thread.) And while it is true that you don't routinely see front-page screaming headlines announcing psuedoscientific theories on the activities of pre-iceage humans, I would say that it might be for the best. Mr. Hancock's ideas are presented in exactly the formats as they should be, I think.

Perhaps. I mean in times past it did take an extraordinary level of financial comfort in order to carry out that type of rigorous inquiry.. oh wait.. same thing goes for today. So.. we've got an automatic control group problem being that those who are more financially secure are more likely to be "trained" especially in areas of study that are not immediately financially rewarding. And, where you get the odd person who has hard-scrabbled his/her way into a PhD you also get the odd person who cannot risk losing their jobs and hence, they go along with the establishment.

Faraday came from exceedingly humble circumstances. Generally speaking, genius will out.

And I wouldn't disqualify a journalist like Hancock from the possiblity of being right, or of making interesting discoveries. But his main thrust of interest seems to be at the moment selling books.

Pardon my french, but Big Effing Deal! Man's gotta eat.

You seem to have yet another prejudice - those who profit are not to be taken seriously.
I think they probably paid Einstein so homey didn't have to sell books.

Einstein supported himself as a patent clerk and a university instructor. He never made anywhere near the fortune that Mr. Hancock has amassed writing best-sellers, unfortunately. But you are right, to an extent - I have some trepidation when it comes to information from amateurs whose main activity appears to be making money. Scientific research is, after all, a rather humble activity on the whole.

Just like to add that I found the Hancock lecture I posted (page 21) fascinating.

I read his book on which the lecture was based, Supernatural, last night in order that I might at least give him a decent chance.