Could Darwin Have Been Wrong?
John Keel, in the December 1999 issue of FATE magazine, muses over the enigmatic megalithic blocks at Stonehenge and Easter Island. His thoughts on the origins of these massive blocks are similar to other true thinkers, namely those who are willing to question how certain unexplained matters on this planet came to be. Both Stonehenge and Easter Island cannot be refuted as to their reality. The weighty stones are present for anyone to look at ... stones that silently beg us to answer their riddle. Yet, mankind has been unable to unravel their mystery, at least up to now.
Mr. Keel makes the challenging statement that "...we are still haunted by racial memories of our planet's past. Every race and every culture has preserved guarded memories of that earlier epoch. Unfortunately, modern science has boxed itself in and dedicated itself to proving Darwin's theory of evolution and other theories that supply a rational, but not necessarily valid, explanation of man's origin and past."
But just how "rational" is the Darwinian theory in light of the many inexplicable discoveries all over the world ? Rationality presumes some kind of logical thought. Although Darwin tried to force his theory to fit what he thought to be true, today we are left perplexed when confronted with certain situations that simply do not fit the pattern.
Keel tells us about one theory, the mainstream archeological approach, which holds that four thousand years ago the people of Great Britain built Stonehenge. These people had primitive tools, mostly made out of bone, and "they probably eked out a living with only the greatest difficulty." Daily life was no doubt rough for mankind during that time. Poor housing, cold winters, and often horrid living conditions contributed to a short life span and early death. Maintaining the survival of the species was paramount.
Yet, somehow we are expected to believe that thousands of these people, throughout generations, quarried huge stones (many of which weighed 30 tons) and transported them from Wales to Amesbury, a distance of nearly 240 miles!!! Even more, once they got these monstrous boulders to the desired location, they arranged them in such a way that the stones reflected precise astronomical accuracy.
Pause for a moment and consider what we are asked to swallow. We are speaking here of a group of "builders" who have tools incapable of cutting through rock, have no knowledge of the wheel, no knowledge of mathematics and certainly were ignorant of astronomy from other than an empirical point of view. If life back then was so difficult, and life expectancy far less than we have today, why would a civilization risk life and limb to erect such a structure, draining their every resource for a number of generations?
The same scenario holds true for Easter Island, the Pyramids of Egypt, and other structures found throughout the world. It would seem more "rational" that these structures were built by a civilization which had resources to spare, with their livelihood well established. Enter once again the concept of a lost civilization -- an Atlantis, a kingdom of Mu. As overwhelmingly laughable as the concept of an advanced lost civilization is to mainstream archeology, it is just as absurd to consider the current mainstream thought on the matter. In fact, to theorize that an advanced lost civilization built the megalithic structures all over this planet is far more "reasonable" than the thought of primitive cultures depleting their survival energy to quarry and transport thirty-ton blocks!!!
The logic is quite simple:
Stonehenge is built with multi-ton stone blocks, cut and transported from 240 miles away, arranged in perfect astronomical alignment.
Stone cutting tools, a method of transportation, and knowledge of mathematics are required to accomplish this task.
Four thousand years ago, man had no stone cutting tools, no way to transport the heavy blocks, and no knowledge of mathematics.
Therefore, four thousand year old man could not have built this structure.
This leaves us with only two possibilities:
The first is that a high civilization existed four thousand years ago which was capable of manipulating massive stone blocks, cutting, shaping, and transporting them. Mathematical and astronomical knowledge was far beyond that of the empirical. There seems to be circumstantial evidence to fit this scenario, but it is inconclusive.
(Fact to consider: some of the blocks in the pyramid at Giza are so massive that there are only two cranes in the world today capable of lifting them, and that very lifting would require weeks of preparation.)
An advanced civilization that mastered a technique for maneuvering heavy materials would not be out of the question. Certainly, humanity as we are told existed back then, without machinery and skills for this kind of work, would be hard pressed to perform such feats. Again the question arises as to "why" cultures would do this if mere survival was so important ?
The second choice we are left with is that there was no advanced civilization, man was as primitive as we now consider him to have been, and incapable of putting together such structures.
So where did these edifices come from? If our ancestors were not able to build them, then someone else was responsible for their creation. If that someone does not fit the explanation in the first choice above, then that someone else was from beyond the confines of our Earth.
There are times when looking in a new direction for answers requires some effort. It is not easy to break away from old lines of thought and search elsewhere ... sometimes the direction which seems the most absurd is where we may find the truth.