Forbidden Archaeology: A Hidden History of the Human Race?

IN-DEPTH VIDEOS, 21 Nov 2016

43 Focus – TRANSCEND Media Service

Researchers Michael Cremo and Richard Thompson have uncovered an incredible, irrefutable amount of archaeological evidence calling into question Darwin’s theory of evolution. Michael Cremo discusses this evidence over the last 150 years and gives several examples of archaeological evidence that has been systematically suppressed by the Western scientific establishment.

Their books include Forbidden Archaeology: A Hidden History of the Human Race,  Cremo & Thompson (1998) and Human Devolution: A Vedic Alternative to Darwin’s Theory, Cremo (2008)

 

This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 21 Nov 2016.

Anticopyright: Editorials and articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted, disseminated, translated and used as background material, provided an acknowledgement and link to the source, TMS: Forbidden Archaeology: A Hidden History of the Human Race?, is included. Thank you.

If you enjoyed this article, please donate to TMS to join the growing list of TMS Supporters.

Share this article:

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0 License.


17 Responses to “Forbidden Archaeology: A Hidden History of the Human Race?”

  1. Leejah Singh says:

    “irrefutable”?

    Come on. There is no reason to destroy the integrity and valuable contributions from TMS with this kind of disgusting rubbish. :-(

  2. i feel it is very interesting that TMS is open to these topics , , to me the fact speaks of an open-mindedness that i quite sympathize with. Maybe history is just as twisted as purported facts in many to most other fields of science and society are? Wishing the whole team the best for the new year and ever lasting now. Love

    • Leejah Singh says:

      Dear NamJen

      If you are open to everything you are open to nothing. Science has completely debunked Cremo and co. You may argue that you donøt like science or the scietific method, but reason and science are not auxillary to humanity or humanism. They are the foudantion for both.

      • Dear Leejah, can you provide us links to ‘Science has completely debunked Cremo and co?’ Please give us the details, proofs, evidence to your [puffed-up] statement. The way Cremo presents his evidences to what he says–matter of factly.

        For the benefit of truth, I must say that I have met Cremo in Lisbon a few years ago, when he came to analyze archaeological materials from the Gulbenkian museum. He is a person of character, beyond reproach, a scholar both on Western and Vedic sciences. He and Richard Thompson (deceased) have, in their books, a wealth of exhaustive info and evidences for their main thesis: The THEORY (not SCIENTIFIC FACT) of evolution is full of loopholes, a fake in more than one way, a narrative of sorts.

        Major bias, in my humble view, Darwin put the British on top of his food chain. Laughable at the very least. The Fittest Civilized ones, blah blah blah… On the verge of destroying the planet with a nuclear war, the Anglos no less.

        The real fittest are the so-called Natives everywhere living in harmony with the earth, the environment, especially with themselves. Look no further than Sanding Rock for facts, real facts.

        For what it is worth, my two or three cents.

        Thanks.

  3. “Incredible” indeed. Literally. As in “unbelievable” rubbish. Pollutes an otherwise fine collection.

  4. Werner T. Meyer says:

    Don’t worry be happy. You all contribute to the science of evolution.

    Antonio correctly points out, that there is nothing ethically or morally positive in the evolutionary direction. Just higher probability of survival in a perhaps lousy environment. Cockroaches will survive WW III. We wont.

    There IS a problem with falsifiability of naked evolutionary theory.
    Leejah Singh, you will like this wonderful article on that. It ends with strong defense of biological evolution theory against creationism:
    http://www.theironsamurai.com/evolution-falsifiable-karl-popper-really-said-dont-believe-hype/

    But what is naked evolution theory: Once we discover life on Mars in the form of a rat or only a bacterium or nothing there will be evolutionists who will claim that this creature evolved or that the environment was to hostile. No event will falsify naked evolution theory.

    It has to be richer, make at least some testable derivations for a yet unobserved region of space-time. Such testable derivations exist. Classical evolutionist bet on the correct position of some species in undisturbed geological layers. Once somebody (Michael Cremo, Richard Thompson , …) finds the remains of the foot of a homo sapiens in a coal mine, the game is over.
    In modern times carbon dating and DNA analysis should make falsifications much easier.
    So Cremo & Thomson do us a great favor by trying to falsify evolution theory. With each year such research is done and well documented our confidence in evolution grows somewhat. Or we have 2 new Darwin’s.

    Yours
    Werner T. Meyer

    • Leejah Singh says:

      Dear mr Meyer

      Very good points. In fact the greatest (unwittingly) accomplishment of Cremo/Thompsen may have been the strenghtning of the case and argument for evolution by forcing the argument.

      As for “there is nothing ethically or morally positive in the evolutionary direction” I will completely disagree however. Empathy, strong family- and social competances are significant hereditary traits and this – coupled with the realization that we are our own masters and have our own responsibility for ourselves and our Planet is an immense morally positive force. Must much stronger and “better” than “outsourcing” ethics and morals to a diety somewhere.

  5. Leejah Singh says:

    Dear Mr Rosa

    Once again sorry for not being able to comment directly to your reply. I’m not sure if it is me or other factors that make the “reply” funtion vanish occationally.

    Cremo’s methodology has been the topic of a very thourough analysis, orniginally published in “Creation/Evolution”, buit also available online:

    http://www.ramtops.co.uk/tarzia.html

    If you want a more comprehensive analysis of Cremo/Thompson’s fraud I recommend Archnology Professor Kenneth Feder’s works.

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Frauds-Myths-Mysteries-Pseudoscience-Archaeology/dp/0078035074

    May I ask you – what exact arguments and evidence from Cremo’s work is in your opinion strongest? “irrefutable”.

  6. Gary Corseri says:

    It’s fascinating material…, but not conclusive.

    Cremo is urging “healthy skepticism.” I think that’s a “healthy” attitude–not just to “scientific” “facts” (which we have been indoctrinated to believe are incontestable!), but to political memes like “America is the world’s greatest democracy,” or, “War is the health of the State,” etc.

    Cremo posits taking a more creative approach to the data. Not to distort the data as, he notes, many “scientists”–especially in academia!–, have done, but to remain open to other interpretations.

    I know of no one who has written better about “cultural violence” than Johan Galtung, the founder of Peace Studies programs around the world–since 1959! Galtung recommends courses in “Culturology”–a discipline still to be developed–to study the way our cultural perspectives and methodologies “color” our world, even to the extent of making individuals and nations more aggressive, more violent. This tape would be a fine starting point, or point of departure, for discussion of the various issues applicable to science, culturology, etc.

    • Thomas Krogh says:

      Gary

      “Cremo is urging “healthy skepticism.””

      No he is not. Cremo+Thompson argued with extremely closed minds. Every point and argument in the book was twisted and turned to fit their pre-conceived notion and goal. That the book *had* to “prove” their fundamentalist vedic nonsense. No serious scientist has ever supported their nonsense.

      Is Transcend really considering this kind of bunk “science”?? :-D

      • Gary Corseri says:

        Thomas, if one begins with bias one will certainly conclude with bias! Let us consider our own biases before objecting to those of others. Quoting from memory (hardly infallible!) I believe Robert Burns put it this way:

        “Oh, would some genie the giftie gi’e us
        To see irselves as ithers see us.”

        You get my point, no doubt. Jesus of Nazareth said it equally well, of course: Don’t worry so much about the splinter in your neighbor’s eye as about the “log” in your own.

        “Vedic nonsense” as you put it (without even capitalizing “Vedic”) is your opinion, and you’re entitled to it! Your condemnation above about Cremo and Thompson’s “book” would require a lot more exposition–academic dialectic.

        TMS has a wide variety of articles, even satirical cartoons and “jokes.” Pick and choose what works for you and then try to say something positive.

  7. Thomas Krogh says:

    Gary

    “You get my point, no doubt. Jesus of Nazareth said it equally well, of course: Don’t worry so much about the splinter in your neighbor’s eye as about the “log” in your own.”

    And your point is? That it is somehow “improper” to counter unscientific fundamentalist nonsense such as Cremo/Thompson’s in generel, or just that it is “improper” to point it out here?

    ““Vedic nonsense” as you put it (without even capitalizing “Vedic”) is your opinion, and you’re entitled to it! Your condemnation above about Cremo and Thompson’s “book” would require a lot more exposition–academic dialectic.”

    Ok, which of C/T’s numerous controversial claims has been proven by the scientific community in the 20 years that followed? Which of them do you yourself consider proven? “Irrefutable” in Antonio’s words.

    “TMS has a wide variety of articles, even satirical cartoons and “jokes.” Pick and choose what works for you and then try to say something positive.”

    Because you find it improper to counter fundamentalist nonsens such as this?

  8. Gary Corseri says:

    Hello Thomas,

    I’ll try to be as clear as possible, hope for the best. This little video has gotten about as much comments as all the other articles on this issue of TMS. I think that’s unfortunate. There’s much good reading, critical thinking at this site. And the authors and editor who put this site together deserve a better hearing. So, I’ll state it once and live with it: I’m long beyond the point where I want to earn debating points; so, I won’t continue this back-and-forth with you on this interesting video. If you want to comment on this note of mine, please be assured I won’t be reading it. Further–

    to quote you/copy-and-paste: “And your point is? That it is somehow “improper” to counter unscientific fundamentalist nonsense such as Cremo/Thompson’s in generel, or just that it is “improper” to point it out here?”

    Well, actually, that’s not my point. First: if you define the categories–such as “unscientific fundamentalist nonsense,” and then tell me my comments, according to your categories, are wrong, that is known as the logical fallacy of “poisoning the wells.” This video is “unscientific” according to your understanding of “science”; it is “fundamentalist nonsense” according to your understanding of “fundamentalism” and “nonsense.” I don’t agree with your definitions, and I suspect many others would not….

    Personally, I don’t think Cremo and Thompson have made a definitive case for humans being on the planet for millions of years. That’s me, operating in the realm of “science” (a rather mutable category, btw; so, let us say, “conventional science,” or “21st-century science”). I don’t have to jump from that category to condemning the Vedas, do I? Might I evince a little respect for an ancient tradition which has guided and nourished people for thousands of years? Might a wise person not wish to delve deeper and reach higher before spewing condemnations, spitting in his earth-neighbors’ eyes?

    • Leejah Singh says:

      Dear Mr Corseri

      Not to jump in to your back-and-forth with Mr Krogh, but a single point and quote from you that may be one of the corners of this whole debate: “That’s me, operating in the realm of “science” (a rather mutable category, btw; so, let us say, “conventional science,” or “21st-century science”).”

      But the science and scientific method that counters and disagrees with Cremo and Thompson is _not_ “21st-century science”. “Science” is in fact a method and way of thinking that has been developed over several hundreds if not thousands of years. With input and methods from East and West.

      And how you may either sympathize or the opposite with Cremo and Thompson, what they are providing in their book is ideology or faith-based ideas. It is not “science” any any meaningful use of the word.

    • Thomas Krogh says:

      Gary

      “I’ll try to be as clear as possible, hope for the best. This little video has gotten about as much comments as all the other articles on this issue of TMS. I think that’s unfortunate. There’s much good reading, critical thinking at this site. And the authors and editor who put this site together deserve a better hearing. So, I’ll state it once and live with it: I’m long beyond the point where I want to earn debating points; so, I won’t continue this back-and-forth with you on this interesting video. If you want to comment on this note of mine, please be assured I won’t be reading it.”

      Fair enough. But you are basically answering your own question. If you want a site where people engage, one of the best ways is to have a lively debate. If you have a site where this is discouraged then you end up with very little engagement and corresponding very few comments. My impression of Trascend – with all due respect – is that the editors don’t really like critical questions. And much less to debate them.

      “Well, actually, that’s not my point. First: if you define the categories–such as “unscientific fundamentalist nonsense,” and then tell me my comments, according to your categories, are wrong, that is known as the logical fallacy of “poisoning the wells.” This video is “unscientific” according to your understanding of “science”; it is “fundamentalist nonsense” according to your understanding of “fundamentalism” and “nonsense.” I don’t agree with your definitions, and I suspect many others would not….”

      What part of the video – and their overall chain of claims and arguments – are “science” from your point of view? How do you define “science”? Anything goes?

      “Personally, I don’t think Cremo and Thompson have made a definitive case for humans being on the planet for millions of years. That’s me, operating in the realm of “science” (a rather mutable category, btw; so, let us say, “conventional science,” or “21st-century science”). I don’t have to jump from that category to condemning the Vedas, do I?”

      I’m not comdemning the Vedas. Religion is religion and peace be with that. People are fully with their rights to believe man wlaked with dinosaurs, that the Earth is 6000 years old, is flat, is hollow and filled with pink gas. Or whatever any religion may propose. Just don’t claim that it is science.

      “Might I evince a little respect for an ancient tradition which has guided and nourished people for thousands of years? Might a wise person not wish to delve deeper and reach higher before spewing condemnations, spitting in his earth-neighbors’ eyes?”

      By nature any fundamentalist interpretation of (any) religion or (any) ideology is intolerant and totalitarian. If anybody want to submit himself or herself to that kind of rubbish, be my guest. But by what metric or ethical norm should others respect that? Of course we shouldn’t. Fundamentalism and fanaticism go hand in hand and is – and has always been – the greatest enemy of mankind.

  9. Gary Corseri says:

    Thanks, Leejah.

    Science is a “method”–true.

    But the methods and conclusions change over the millennia. The “science” of Aristotle is much different from that of Copernicus or Newton or Darwin or Einstein. Hypothesis, proof and re-proving may be the methods of science, but the tools and conclusions are mutable.

    Darwin modified the Origin of the Species in his later book, “The Descent of Man.” Einstein changed the Newtonian universe with a few “thought experiments.” The world that I was taught as a child had 3 dimensions–possibly 4, counting “time”–I am now informed (Michio Kaku and the like) has 11 dimensions. “String theory” replaces atomic theory. As Vonnegut used to say: “So it goes.”

  10. For what it is worth, my own bias: https://www.transcend.org/tms/2013/03/spirituality-and-virtue-as-corollaries-to-peace/

    I am not a scientist, not a humanist, not a religionist. No labels; an identity: I am a naive spiritual being trapped in this planet for a while and surrounded by mysteries, ignorance, and by human beings playing god; like misbehaved, disoriented astray children they truly are.

    We must feel compassion for ourselves, especially for the intelligent (not smart), aggressive hawks [such as military, politicians, scientists, businesspersons] who are in the process of destroying this planet. The planet doesn’t matter much, it is less than a speck, an atom in the cosmos. Matter will reorganize itself accordingly even after a nuclear war.

    But WE matter! Yet we keep killing each other as if the death, pain & suffering of The Other were the final solution to (what, exactly?) our problems. We kill by commission and by omission with cruelty. Then have a lot of sex to create more humans to kill. Get my drift? I refuse to be part of the insanity, the animal division into races, colors, species, nationalities, citizenships, whatever. Good/bad is a matter of personal choice, not predestination, culture, or lack of civilization. Yet, consciousness is off limits for science.

    ‘The bell tolls for you, humanity.’ I agree with Hemingway. I am grateful to be 70 years old, on my way out of this entrapment with lunatics (most, not all).