Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Michael Cremo.

(French introduction last for about a minute) English conference with Micheal L.Cremo, author of the best seller: Forbidden Archeology.

7 comments:

Charles Bergeman said...

Check out the 3 related posts on this blog.

The earlier posts on the chicago UFO, mind control, among others are beginning to show a pattern.

I understand where you are coming from more clearly now (assuming these are all your own interests).

dr.alistair said...

the scientific view is always going to be one of learned refutation.
my point has always to look at the vast body of questions that are raised by the postulates of cremo and the like and look at how the traditional scientific commuinity reacts.
granted some of the ufo, conspiracy and mind control stuff is plain daft but when you sift through you start to see little bits of something that science isn`t able to rationalise away.

the establishment has a lot to answer for in terms of medicine, psychology, taxation, economics etc, so why would`t it behave any differently when it comes to history and archeology.

Charles Bergeman said...

I would agree that there is always more to learn and that many things we take for granted today will someday be proven incorrect.

However, I am always skeptical of reasearch that comes from people who seem to have a hidden agenda.

Cremo sounds like he knows what he is talking about because he uses terminolgy and references that can be easily understood and recalled by people in his field of endeavor.

And yet, as I pointed out in my link, even a student of archeology is able to quickly see issues with the evidence Cremo provides.

I am an open minded skeptic. Sorry if that sounds contradictory.

However, I am willing to entertain theories and ideas that are far out , even wacky, as long as it takes to see if they hold water.

If I am unable to find significant collaborating evidence from parties other than the author, or there is significant evidence to the contrary, I lose interest.

I spent 3 months investigating the 9/11 conspiracy theories, because my brother was so insistant on their validity.

In the end, I produced enough contradictory evidence to convince his wife (who was also a believer), that the conspiracy was flawed and rittled with innacuracies.

But my brother remains convinced. I am very sad about this, I feel he is wasting a lot of energy on this that would be better spent elsewhere.

He is an intelligent person with good moral judgement. But he is also very stubborn.

Frankly, I am new to the line of thinking that Cremo is promoting.

But, I admit to being more than skeptical at this stage of my review of the evidence.

When a claim such as this, with the extraordinary implications it has for our view of the world, it must have extraordinarily convincing evidence to support it.

Otherwise, I would have to treat it like I do a Science Fiction Novel. I can be entertained by the possibilities, without being concerned about the implications for the real world around me.

dr.alistair said...

"When a claim such as this, with the extraordinary implications it has for our view of the world, it must have extraordinarily convincing evidence to support it."

why? wouldn`t the facts suffice?

i tire of that type of rhetoric for the simple reason that it gives people the excuse to ge back to sleep.

in the past there have been assumptions made by scientists that things were impossible and so they operated out of that belief.

the computers we are using today were considered impossible twenty five years ago. i remember the boundary speed for cpu speed being less than one gig because of heat and now we are off to the races with virtual reality and google video etc.

our beliefs do create realities, and so my hat goes off to the cremos of the world who open things up to possibility thinks.

if you get an opportunity to read forbidden archeology you will see that a fair bit of his position is backed up with boring old mundane fact. the sheer body of unexplainable artifacts lying in strata that shouldn`t, by traditional metrics, contain it.

and speaking of agendas.....the scientific community lives and dies by the reasearch grant. being proven wrong is like bankrupcy.

Charles Bergeman said...

Ugh, this is the same type of argument that I confronted when working through the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

I may someday read Forbidden Archeology, but there is a tremendous amount of research material out there on many subjects.

I have endevoured over the years to acquire as much knowledge as I can on a wide variety of subjects.

I have only so much time on this planet. I plan to use it as wisely as I can. In doing so, I must make judgements regarding what material is worth spending time on and what isn't.

When presented with this type of subject, the 1st thing I do is to check out what a wide range of people have said about the author.

I did this briefly after reading your post. I will probably look further before I decide to read any more on it.

The other thing I do is look into what the critics have to say. There are many in the case of Cremo.

You are probably right in that I do often give preference to the scientific community. I think you would be surprised at how many "scientists" there are, who are funded by Universities, that are researching things like the 9/11 conspiracies, creationism, etc.

So to say that funding from a university, bends the research in a particular direction, is not completely accurate.

I remain open to any possibilities. However, there is a pecking order for these possibilities in my mind, that is established by evidence I have accumulated over my lifetime.

I do not suggest that my conclusions are all accurate or even well founded in some cases. Suffice it to say that I have been around the block a few times.

One thing I have learned to do, is to research carefully, and to consider the evidence using a common sense approach.

My intuition has served me well, If it looks like a duck...etc.

To me, right at this moment, this one seems to be quacking.

In regards to the "facts" he uses to support his claims, I have already found indications that these facts were taken out of context or used incorrectly to support his line of thinking.

I suspect, that there is more evidence of this out there if I took the time to look.

I am a skeptic by nature, and an atheist at that. So, I suppose in your mind that skewes my perspective.

But, I have found that athiests apply more common sense and reason when debating a topic than most.

Facts (supported by observable, repeatable tests) rather than mystic or religious dogma factor are the foundation of their thinking.

Cremo and Thomas belong to the Bhaktivedanta Institute in San Diego, which is the academic center for ISKCON (The International Society for Krishna Consciousness), a part of the Vaisnava religion from India (a branch of Hinduism).

I have around 50 books in line to read right now, I may consider adding Cremo's to the next 50, I'm not sure at this time.

If I do, I will pass along my thoughts.

dr.alistair said...

thanks charles.

you are entirely right about the underlying motives behind cremo`s affliations. the hindu view is that we have been here over and over for infinite amounts of time, so i could see how his archeological view could be skewed.

the skewing works the same way for other scientist too.

we are at the bottom of a well looking up at whatever gets poured down on us by "experts" so the filters of athiesm and skepticism need to be in place.

my point about cremo is that he is delivering the (!) thing to push his agenda, but along with the circus comes the odd bit of actual stuff that points to some things that can be looked at objectively.

i am looking for info on a brass mechanism that was found by divers in the mediterranian sea that has been x-rayed and found to be a mechanical computer used for calculating the movement of planetary bodies......speaking of the (!)

dr.alistair said...

http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_4.htm

here it is.

there are many more objects like this that cremo documents in his work.....so the wheat can be seperated from the chaff with some effort.