Those are just a few examples of thousands of things besides questionable fossils we cannot comprehend into an academically conservative narrative. Im no archeologist nor anthropologist but as a student of history for a good 7 years I've read more than enough primary sources (journals and scanned puctures of short documents written by British scholars and archeologists) that are baffling. Comparative religion, especially ancient mythology, also brings into question lots of dtriking similarities and the frequent mentioning of giants.

If youre into entertaining some alternate histories there are hundreds of theories proposed by various online sources and actual people. Some are inconsistent and were proven to be phonies.. but Ive found Alterwelt to be the most interesting. Out of all the whacky theorists out there he gave me the best impression as realistic and consistent. I suggest you give his threads a read. Its interesting to say the least even if its a hoax, as it deviates from the standard alien occupation theories.

I think that even within the field of Anthropology there is much debate. They're not "all lying" to us. There's active disagreement between Anthropologists themselves about these things, and spates upon spates of back and forths in Academic Journals as they battle each others ideas.

This is good- this is how Academia is supposed to function.

this is how Academia is supposed to function.

What do you believe 'academia' exists to do, exactly?

Allow people to hyper-specialize in their fields and ultimately contribute more to the summation of human knowledge. This requires debate and dialogue. It doesn't always work in practice but that is how it is to work in Theory and depending on the field, that is how it works in Reality.

Allow people to hyper-specialize in their fields and ultimately contribute more to the summation of human knowledge.

You must be young and idealistic. I like that.

Yeah once I finish my degree the government will come and pay me off and threaten me to not spill the beans.

Gotta pay that student debt somehow, right? I do like have elements on this sub think so little of scientists and students to think that they are all involved in some hoax to fool humanity.

There are a lot of a phds, MDs, engineers on reddit and somehow the pluarlity of them seem to miss some basic tings that some random lay people see quite clearly...

Sorry bro, but that is not the reality of academia at all. There is a set of beliefs and theories that are simply not allowed to be challenged. These 'battling journals' must absolutely stay in the parameters of establishing anthropology or else they are dismissed, mocked and lambasted. Jobs and careers are threatened for stepping outside of this established narrative, and to think otherwise is turning a deaf ear to the testimonials of dozens of anthropologists. Disagreement about a small set of variables is meaningless if the premises are sacrosanct.

Not every field functions as it should, but not all Academia is a total shit show. What I explained is an ideal case, and there is debate about things concerning what OP mentioned, though you highlight a major issue. My personal experiences are not with Anthropology, however.

Yes, but the idea that Neanderthals are dumb is not consistent with modern anthropology. That's a relic found in the general public, which is slowly breaking down, but most anthropologists would challenge the idea simply based on the fact that they buried their dead and were artists well-before Homo sapiens.

My point for saying this is that things may not always be as they same.

In order for any study or discipline to actually be considered "a science" it can only postulate strictly physical and purely materialistic answers and explanations for anything that falls under those areas of study or within the fields of those disciplines.

That goes all the way back to the adoption of Newton's model as the only, exclusive, and unchallengeable one, despite how unscientific that was and which is still in place despite all of the major flaws in Newton's basic assumptions that have rendered it obsolete.

Given the empirical nature of how science was and still is conducted no new model has been forthcoming for the past 100 years since quantum mechanics disproved and superseded that model because they want and won't accept any model that won't still preserve all the years of scientific findings since Newton rather than casting doubt on a great deal of it, which many better and more accurate models, all unfortunately do.

We also have the basic notion that those sciences are "self-correcting", meaning that any of those answers or explanations, in the absence of anything better, will have to do until something better comes along, no matter how loosey-goosey or implausible they might actually be when it comes to creating and holding certain scientific theories together, like evolution, for instance.

If anyone actually remembers when the Neanderthal DNA was first sequenced, the official verdict was that it was an entirely different species altogether that couldn't possibly be related to human beings in any way. Not even in our tree, but in one of its very own that ended in extinction.

That caused something of a stir because among the other so-called hominids cited in the case for human evolution the Neanderthal was the one that in most other ways appeared to resemble humans so that strongly suggested the same would apply all of the others that all bore even less of a resemblance than that too. To that we can add the DNA sequencing of the chimpanzee only to find that it is a much younger species than our own meaning that if we and it come from some common ancestor or line of ancestors they has to still exist at the same time as we did to produce the chimpanzee after us, which doesn't actually make a whole lot of sense.

Within less than a year, however, virtually no further mention of the Neanderthal's complete incompatibility was made while a slow but steady flow of articles started to appear that all subtly backpedalled on that and continued to speculate about human and Neanderthal interbreeding to account for a very small amount of DNA that we happen to have in common. What they don't say, however, is that we have similarly small amounts of DNA that we also have in common with plants or that such DNA is most likely connected to a limited number of workable designs for simple and basic components among all kinds of life forms.

Wittingly or unwittingly, yes they are.

America has always had a very strong anti-science segment of its population.

American civil war, Crimea, Boer, WW1, chemical weapons, WW2, firestorms, nukes, mass slaughter of civilians via science based war machine, biological warfare, induced famines.

could there be a connection or a coincidence !?

the war sciences are happily adopted by the ruling 1% paid for by the taxpayers too, the health and food and social science stuff is resisted tooth and nail by the rulers.

As horrible as the uses can be, we should never try to shut down science or lie about it. In the end science will help us find peace.

I think there are many younger, up and coming, anthropologists who find these things that don't jive, and they are crushed into submission, lest they have their careers hobbled.

It is almost like a process of indoctrination and conditioning, isn't it?

That is exactly what it is.

The Rockefeller’s higher archaeologist to go around the world and cover everything up before other people find them then they hide everything in their museum in Jerusalem.

anthropologists vision of history is very limited. all we have are what holds up

to say they are lying is very uncharitable in my opinion

what they are is extremely conservative, especially when making changes. theories must have very strong evidence to warrant changes to popular theory. Imo it would be very irresponsible to take incomplete(even less complete than what we have proof of) evidence and start a whole new theory around it, and teach it to generations of kids. youd have to change it every decade or so

Finding a bone chip, and weaving an imaginative fiction around it to fit the consensus theories isn't acceptable. But it's "business as usual", so everyone just takes their role and their grant money, and plays along.

i do wish 'the establishment' (hate that term, as if 'the establishment' is a monolith) would pay more attention to radical ideas such as graham hancocks friend randall carlson. he seems very measures and has a lot of evidence to back up his catastrophe theories

Ya along with historians and geologist.

r/culturallayer

r/mudfossils

r/homogigsnticus

r/historicalstreetview

They are nothing more than disinfo. Agents telling us their theory about our past.... Kind of like NASA

Hey I searched denisovans and found this thread. I just came to the conclusion the ancient mound builders and giants of north america are probably denisovans

Yes, but the idea that Neanderthals are dumb is not consistent with modern anthropology. That's a relic found in the general public, which is slowly breaking down, but most anthropologists would challenge the idea simply based on the fact that they buried their dead and were artists well-before Homo sapiens.

My point for saying this is that things may not always be as they same.