The purpose of ancient monuments as described by archaeologists is often nothing more than guess work. Guessing has nothing to do with the scientific method.
If an archaeologist is unaware (and often in denial) about the fact that the crust has been deformed massively and that ancient monuments were already present when this happened many millenniums ago, they are missing an important part of the big puzzle. In that case are the conclusions of archaeologists nothing more than heavily biased opinions based on false ideas.
When archaeologists then try to reconstruct the original purpose of ancient monuments it will always be incorrect as incorrect can be, claimed under the flag of science brought under the flag of large institutions into the public arena. And when this “scientific” opinion appears to be wrong it is often replaced by another “scientific” opinion which the public then greedily consumes as a new “truth” aften accompanied with slick looking pictures, writing styles and animations as fairy tales for adults. This will go on and on as long as science is only an opinion and not based on mathematics.
It is for individual researchers always difficult to argue with the official conclusions because the institutions are always right, aren’t they? Well, if that would be true theories would never change, wouldn’t they? That is because most theories are not entirely mathematical and are knitted together with ideas and opinions. We have secured our theory and method with pure mathematics. We express our discoveries in probabilities.
Who dares to argue with our conclusions?
- The Purpose of Stonehenge
- El Caracol, an Ancient Observatory
- Pozzo di Santa Cristina
- Complex Nuraghes: Piscu
- Complex Nuraghes: Santu Antine
© 2015 – 2018 by Mario Buildreps