I couldn't agree more on this @Soretna ! The vicious system of peer review is designed just to kill ideas that challenge the science establishment :))
I am completely unsurprised.
A few years ago, I read a book called The Big Fat Surprise. Part of it was about how Ancel Keys had majorly messed with the results of his search for a healthy diet. He excluded anything that didn't match what he'd decided was true, and the United States has paid the price for it in worse health since that time. Since I grew up being brainwashed that margarine was good, butter was bad, etc., I was shocked by what the book said.
Ever since then, I don't trust studies or scientists. And these last 3 to 4 years have put the final nail in the coffin of any tattered shred of trust or belief I might have had in "science", scientists, and doctors.
And then you've got Graham Hancock, a brilliant man, who is vilified and even persecuted to some extent by so-called archeologists who hate him.
I can't trust men and women who are on such shaky ground that they have to treat people like "scientists" and archeologists treat people who come up with ideas that rock the boat.
All of our institutions have been infiltrated, and have become the lackeys for NWO manipulation. Department Chairmen are rascals of the lowest order.
Thank you for sharing your personal experience there. I have much the same feelings in these regards. The problem I have is that there are a FEW good scientists out there, but they are not accepted by the community. Also, sometimes these "fringe" scientists themselves are not right or entirely right and so you still need proper lenses to focus the information they have found. It would be nice to have a massive corpus of pure data that is untainted to utilize for proper modeling. That would be incredibly amazing.
Graham Hancock has left me with mixed feelings. I don't care much for him as a person and I believe he has some skewed observations, but he does have some interesting and good data. Clearly going against the establishment is a wonderful thing and his efforts to be a rebel are fantastic, but I do fear he does not have proper framing. He is a hard person to contact since he has reached celebrity status. I have wished and hoped to reach him in order to help him with his framing and to establish superior context into which to set his data / findings / research, but that celebrity status + heavy filtering has basically relegated him to not obtaining the full truth. Perhaps that is by design from "the system"...
@Soretna , if you do get a connect to Graham Hancock , please let us know .
I think he is at least on the right path and has an honest intention to discover the truth . The man has true courage and doesn't care much about opinions that the establishment has about his work :))
I don't think Hancock is 100% right about everything. What I admire is that he's willing to be wrong, often has unique views, and is willing to immerse himself in what he's researching. As to his personality, I guess I haven't paid much attention.
Unfortunate that he is so difficult to get in touch with. I had not known that.
I suppose the personality and willingness to accept wrongness are both concerns. I have a fear that his willingness to accept some things may be feigned at some level. Oh well - it's not terribly important in that latter sense that getting ahold of him probably precludes any certainty in knowing these things for sure via honest dialogue to try to see eye-to-eye. The celebrity status is a tool used by the forces of evil to manipulate even many of those who would be the very best of us. Another reason I suppose I think anonymity is a shield.