Theos-Talk Archives (October 2003 Message tt00006)

Oct 2 2003

Dear Munise:

I think that HPB used the phrase: "men of true Science" to indicate
individuals who were students, scholars, and researchers who looked for
truth and accuracy without any prejudice, and with no intentions of
hiding anything that they found because it ran contrary to any current
hypothesis or theory. 

By contrast:

In the world of modern Science at our Academies, we find that students,
to secure degrees have to conform to current and accepted hypothesis or
theories, even if these include the prejudices of the ruling Professors
and Academicians.

An example is the current evolutionary theory, based on relicts and
fossils which are scarce and also inconclusive when carefully analysed.
HPB did this in the 2nd Vol. the SECRET DOCTRINE and it needs careful
studying.

If materialism alone is chosen as the basis for evolution, the CAUSE for
the first and most primitive forms, and their subsequent changes (as
displayed in scenarios such as the descent of the Horse from the
Eohippus, or of MAN from what is considered to be skeletal remains of a
primitive dwarfish biped) is not fully outlined. It is THEORIZED. It
is a HYPOTHESIS. And both theories and hypotheses are subject to
revision if the evidence is found strong enough to upset them. It is
not set in stone. But it takes long and careful analysis to demonstrate
this.

Archeology and paleontology are at odds with geology in many cases on
the subject of accurately dating the past. I believe THIS IS GRADUALLY
BEING ACCUMULATED. Let me share with you some receipt correspondence on
this:


------------------------------------------------

COPY  


[7 - 3 2003]

I sent the following to the publisher's of "FORBIDDEN 
ARCHEOLOGY," Govardhan Hill Publishing.   

re "FORBIDDEN ARCHEOLOGY"

To whom it may concern:

The subject of ancient human giants came up on a 
discussion group, and one of the correspondents wrote that 
his father visited the Havasupai branch of the Grand Canyon 
in Arizona in the 1920's. Apparently petrified imprints of 
giant humans were found there.

Photographs and details were taken and preserved in San 
Francisco and in Washington in the archives of the Dept. of 
Geology. The Professor of Geology and anthropology at the 
University of California San Francisco Dr Hubbard and 
another Dr. Osborn did the discovering, investigating and 
measuring.  

The discovery was interrupted and then terminated by a large landslide
in the canyon that obliterated the area. It was massive and too large
to try to remove.  

But the reports and photographs exist in the archives of both
institutions. Apparently the man-figure was about 27 feet long, the
woman-figure about 24, and the child was about 18 feet long. The
figures were exposed on a ledge near the bottom of the canyon and were
partly buried inside the material of the 
steep wall of the canyon above. The writer claimed that his father had
pictures of these and that he saw those when he was about 18.

Also, another writer on that discussion list wrote that during a visit
to the Joshua Tree National Monument in California,  
in the flats area maybe less than a 1000 feet off the paved 
road he found large footprints in the exposed sandstone that 
was bare to the air in patches. He measured the length 
between the footprints as double what he could manage with 
the most exaggerated step he could take without falling.

Also, the following paragraph is from Vol. 4 (1925) 
"Official Automobile Blue Book's Standard Touring 
Guide of America": "Among the many points of 
interest within a few miles of the city is the Nevada 
state prison. Not only as a model penal institution is 
this place interesting but because it is the site of some 
of the most wonderful discoveries of prehistoric life.  

Within the prison walls are found footprints in the 
solid stone of the giant who, when the present site was 
a lake, made his way along the shore, sinking deep into 
the mud and leaving imprints...."

I was advised by email from a representative of the National 
Geographic that the society generally does not initiate 
investigations, but that their Committee for research and 
exploration considers proposals from scientists who do; and 
that if they feel that the proposal has merit, the Committee 
then offers a grant to help the scientists with their research 
work. Apparently they often publish articles on the research 
work that they support. I was told that they would be happy 
to consider a proposal for an investigation into this, and that 
information on their program of research support is available 
on their website at:
 
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/research/grant/rg1.html.

I personally am in no position to do any investigating, but 
would like to see somebody verify some or all of the various 
leads, and then (possibly?) publish an article about that 
topic in, for example, the National Geographic, if possible. I 
am wondering if somebody reading this might have some 
interest along those lines, even as much as to check out and 
report on:

<<1 at the archives of the Geology Dept. University of 
California in San Francisco and

2 at the archives of the Dept. of Geology in Washington 
D C [also LIBRARY OF CONGRESS ]>> as per my 
informant.

I wonder if anybody who is living or visiting in those areas  
might have some interest in looking up whatever records and 
photos that might still remain in those archives?

Of course one might presume (?) that there may be a number 
of mainstream anthropologists and archeologists who might 
not take kindly to having their current belief-structures and 
theories investigated and questioned, so I suspect that any 
investigation along those lines would necessarily have to be 
rather clandestine, tactful and sophisticated for it to get 
anywhere at all, if during those investigations there is a need 
for any helpful cooperation from those who might be 
somewhat constrained by a mainstream, or average, world 
view (among other things, possibly) with respect to 
archeology/anthropology and related sciences.

Thank you for any help in bringing these reports to the light 
of day.

Sincerely,


=============================

Best wishes,

Dallas

=========================

-----Original Message-----
From: Munise Yararcan [mailto:munismunis@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 9:44 AM
To: 
Subject: H P B -- men of true Science

Dear Dallas, All

This is from S.D. Vol 1 pg 514
"By the "men of true Science" we mean those who care too much for truth
and 
too little for their personal vanity to dogmatise on anything, as the 
majority do."

If life is a science then on which basis "majority" is defined? With
any 
number of people having different ideas , different in number , or by 
considering world population? It must be one of characteristics of many

groups having majority to care for their personal vanity to dogmatize on

anything. With few exceptions of course.

By the way how we are going to find similar "care too much" and "care
too 
little" concepts all over the world? I think it worths trying to find
so.


Best regards
Munise



>
>
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Blavatsky_Study-unsubscribe@egroups.com

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/