“I have … long felt that the amateur has a much more important role in science than is usually recognized. I teach the history of science, and have become aware of the extent to which the most radical discoveries (sometimes called ‘breakthroughs’) have been opposed by experts in the affected fields. It is a fact, obviously, that every scientist is an amateur to start with. Copernicus, Newton, Darwin were all amateurs when they made their principal discoveries. Through the course of long years of work they became specialists in the fields which they created. However, the specialist who starts out by learning what everybody else has done before him is not likely to initiate anything very new. An expert is a person who knows everything, or nearly everything, and usually thinks he/she knows everything important in his field. If he doesn’t think he knows everything, at least he knows that other people know less, and thinks that amateurs know nothing. And so he has an unwise contempt for amateurs, despite the fact that it is to amateurs that innumerable important discoveries in all fields of science have been due.” Publisher’s Forward by Richard Grossinger, page xxiv,of Richard Hoagland’s book, The Monuments of Mars, copyright 1987. (Italics are mine, Don Chapin)
Hoagland, armed only with a high school diploma, a science reporter by trade, who never set forth on a college campus as a student, and despite what I understand possessing an abrasive personality, has produced an extremely
cogent argument for alien–built structures on Mars…. structures that were potentially erected even before Earth’s mankind became mankind. A position that the “experts” at NASA summarily reject.
“One critic complained to me that ‘Well, if you are right, we will have to rewrite the textbooks!’ As if that were a bad thing … [But], curiously, some of our most virulent critics are associated with NASA and the government. A NASA employee tells me that this attitude of opposition to impact threats is entrenched in NASA and is only now slowly beginning to change. When it became obvious to NASA decades ago that asteroids and comets are a serious threat, their employees were instructed by top government officials to downplay the risk. The government was concerned that the populace would “panic” over space rocks and demand action, when NASA couldn’t do anything about them and didn’t want to admit it. Plus, trying to mitigate any impact hazards would have used up funding they wanted to put elsewhere.” ― Quote from John Anthony West, Egyptologist, on another topic (With these two examples, so
much for the “experts” at NASA!!)
West had a supreme respect for amateurs’ contributions to science, as did the authors of “Forbidden Archeology,” Michael A.Cremo and Richard L. Thompson, who’s voluminous book shook up the field of archeology in 1993.
Cremo “got even” with his adverse critics in1998, however, when he published “Forbidden Archeology’s Impact,” clearly showing, using their own words, how small-minded various “learned expert” critics actually were!
Frank Joseph, in Before Atlantis, agreeing with Grossinger, Cremo & Thompson, and West states: The greatest finds are made by lowly ‘amateurs’ unfettered by conventional blinders, their documentation dismissed as fraudulent and they themselves castigated by academics who rarely give more than a cursory glance at the new evidence—which is later authenticated typically long after all persons originally concerned have passed away in disgrace..”
Knight and Butler, in “Before The Pyramids,’ say, “Valuable evidence is consigned to the waste bin because standing assumptions are considered too important to be challenged.” ‘Nuff said.
And who are these “experts” but sole-subject PhDs whom I would consider as super-educated technicians. It is not generally recognized, that a PhD simply attests to years of academic study in a specific field which, as a general rule, automatically limits a person’s interest and background to the field he/she studied. Then, when you get down to look closer at that field, it was most likely an artificial one (i.e. man-made, as is most fields of academic interest, and quite soon outdated). Also, from personal experience, obtaining a PhD takes only a modicum of intelligence, but primarily persistence. Yes, there are exceptions, but it quickly becomes obvious that those exceptions are due to personal quirks…an inquiring mind, a personal curiosity that roams beyond narrow backgrounds, etc.
So, Grossinger (Hoagland’s publisher) pretty much “hits the nail on the head.” Many “experts” largely accept the theories of their particular field of study as “facts,” instead of independently considering other possibilities and testing for them…such as anthropology’s out-of-Africa theory-accepted-as-fact, in spite of voluminous channeled documents stating otherwise; such as astronomer’s theory-accepted-as-fact concerning the Big Bang, despite voluminous other-side-of-the-veil descriptions of “eternity;” such as Darwin’s man-from-ape evolution theory-accepted-as-fact when several channeled sources document the various ET cultures that contributed to mankind’s development.
Even history that is taught in schools everywhere… lawyers are quite familiar with the various “observations” contributed by witnesses and often put on theatrical performances to convince juries of the most favorable version to their client. So it is with history…different observers relate different historical “facts,” but which witness is the “expert?” yet typically only one set of “facts’ is included in any particular reference book, depending upon the book author’s beliefs and biases, and that version becomes “historical fact.” Contemporary example: look at different historical events occurring between the U.S. and Native Americans…. i.e., where’s the “expert?”
When I started my on-campus college life for a B.S., I was startled to be quietly disagreeing with two course instructors, one in electrical current flow and one in thermodynamics and entropy theory. I, therefore, questioned every other fact
presented by any instructor. Today I stand vindicated in both subjects. Expert?