“Could an ancient civilisation have arisen to heights similar to our own, yet have traveled a similar road? What would we understand of a world that might have employed fundamentally different – though no less effective – techniques to harness the forces of nature? Would we, or could we, comprehend a world capable of, for example, creating and transmitting energy by means other than a power grid, traveling great distances without internal combustion engines, or making highly complex calculations involving earth science and astronomy without electronic computers?
Do we have the grace to recognise and respect achievements other than our own, or must we take the easy way out and resort to crude stereotyping of our mysterious primitive ancestors, dismissing out of hand anything we don’t immediately understand? Indeed there are some … who would argue that the evidence of a great but forgotten fountainhead of civilisation is overwhelming and needs, at last, to be given its proper role.”
So wrote Douglas Kenyon in his ‘Introduction’ to ‘Forbidden History: Technologies, Extraterrestrial Intervention, and the Suppressed Origins of Civilisation.’
In the chapter ‘Exposing a scientific cover-up,’ Kenyon wrote:
“Among scores of … cases cited in Richard Thompson and Michael Cremo’s ‘Forbidden Archeology,’ … it is clear that these … examples are by no means uncommon. Suggesting nothing less than a ‘massive cover-up,’ Cremo and Thompson believe that when it comes to explaining the origins of the human race on Earth, academic science has cooked the books.”
“ In every area of research, from paleontology to anthropology and archaeology, that which is presented to the public as established and irrefutable fact is indeed nothing more, says Cremo ‘than a consensus arrived at by powerful groups of people.’ Is that consensus justified by the evidence? Cremo and Thompson say no.
Carefully citing all available documentation, the authors produce case after case of contradictory research that has been conducted in the last two centuries. The authors describe astonishing discoveries made, and then go on to discuss the controversies that ensued from those discoveries and the suppression of evidence that invariable followed.”
In his ‘Introduction,’ Kenyon also wrote “Recall the Church fathers of the Middle Ages and their refusal, because of what they considered to be Galileo’s incorrect conclusions, to look through his telescope for themselves. Galileo’s notion that the Sun, not Earth, was the center of the solar system was deemed heresy, no matter what the evidence might show to the contrary.”
RAJA ARASA RATNAM 