Well, that's a controversial statement, isn't it? Mainstream science is not waiting for controversial theories or any other paradigm shift that endangers their institutions.
I come from a family of archaeologists and geologists, and what I have to tell is very controversial. My family possesses a display cabinet full of rare Sumerian tablets and cuneiform tablets. No one can read them. But my late grandfather could read them all, including the Sumerian tablets, as one of the few people in the world. I believe he guides me in his spirit, because I have no idea where my knowledge could come from otherwise.
Did you ever ask yourself where archaeologists base their conclusions upon?
Stone structures cannot be dated in any way. When they would date the stone, they find the formation age of the rock itself, and not when it was piled on top of eachother. Archaeologists conclude everything on excavations and finding in and around stone structures. Their interpretations are always indirect.
This it how classification in general works: we have stone age, bronze age and iron age. All these eras are classified into certain time frames. The stone age is everything beyond 5,000 years old, bronze age between 5,000 and 3,000, and iron age everything younger than 3,000 years. That's a rough classification. Archaeologists work with a much more subtle detailing.
When an archaeologist finds iron in or around an ancient temple, which (vaguely) can be related to the builders of a temple, the conclusion is that the age of the temple is younger than 3,000 years. And of course they use the C14 method to date the organic materials. But there appear to be an insuperable problem with C14 when the crust wasn’t as stable as assumed in the history.
So, our time framing of stone, bronze and iron dictates in fact everything else. This time framing however is completely irrational, and caused by the conditioning of the involved scientists.
Where is the statement based upon that Civilisations are over 350,000 years old? It's not that simple to explain. I've written two extensive articles on on this issue:
I'm working on a book that will explain everything in detail. It's making deep connections between different events and disciplines, without making illogical jumps, which leads to inevitable conclusions that knocks you off your feet.
- We all know the sages about the great floods.
- We all know what science tells us about former ice ages. No one knows what caused it.
- Some of us know about the staggering alignment of ancient buildings. The alignment of about 200 locations reveal 4 former locations of the geo North pole.
- Ice ages show a temperature drop that is similar to the latitude shift of the crust. Showing that ice ages were no 'ice ages' but dislocations of the crust, causing huge floods, and wiping out ancient civilizations.
- C14 has become useless when the crust slips once in a while, since the biosphere changes completely.
- The oldest alignments are to find in Peru, Iran, Guatemala, Mexico, Russia and Ukraine, pointing out that they are 4 glacial cycles ago, which is more than 350,000 years.
To come to the conclusion that the oldest civilaztions are over 350,000 years old is not easy, and cannot be pressed into a few sentences. That’s why I started to write a book on this issue, that will explain everything in detail. The insights came in a split second, while I’m already months busy working them out in one conclusive consistent theory.
Ask a geologist the following questions:
1) why was the last ice age not centred around the current geographical North pole?
2) what caused the ice ages?
3) why is the Greenland ice sheet melting?
4) why aren’t Alaska, Canada and Russia not covered with a similar ice sheet?
5) why is the crust assumed to be stable while it floats on a magma layer?
6) why are the records of geomagnetic reversals (preserved in volcanic and sedimentary rock) exclusively interpreted as magnetic reversals? There’s no way to tell what actually reversed. The magnetic poles or the geographic poles. It’s therefore an irrational assumption.
What you’ll find is that there are as many explanations as there are geologists. That means that there’s no consistent overall theory. That consistent theory is now found.