1. Human factor
Who do you think is responsible for creating the official versions of the stories? Ordinary people, only with additional knowledge in some areas.
But people tend to make mistakes, especially with collective consent. Remember how several centuries ago, scientists all over the world argued that we can never conquer the sky, because objects heavier than air cannot fly.
This was said not by one person, but by entire scientific institutions of that time. You know very well how this story ended.
I am bringing you to the idea that even if today some things contradict the official positions of scientists, this does not mean that they are completely absurd.
Since historians can be wrong, I highly do not recommend you to blindly believe in all their versions.
2. History is not an exact science
Promotional video:
How can you believe and teach ancient history when it can completely change from a single find? I'll give you a trivial example.
Imagine if now an ancient papyrus is found in Egypt, where the excavation of a pyramid in the sands by one of the very first pharaohs of the times of the ancient kingdom will be described. Suppose they don't have time to hide the papyrus, and the information from it quickly gets into the general public.
On the official version of the history of ancient Egypt, it will be possible to put a cross along with this find. It turns out that the pyramids stood long before the first Egyptians, and a certain pharaoh only dug them out.
In this case, the whole history will have to be rewritten, because fairy tales about the ancient gods will seem not so fantastic as modern historians now present them to us.
And how many such finds are now hidden underground? At any given time, we can find evidence of the existence of the most ancient civilizations on Earth long before us.
Therefore, history can be perceived only as an assumption, and not an indisputable truth, because who knows how everything really happened.
3. Large errors in dating
Most modern dating methods have too large a percentage of errors, which casts doubt on their accuracy.
I don't remember the exact numbers, but in radiocarbon analysis, the error can reach (if memory does not fail) up to 15-20%. The most interesting thing is that real scientists know about this, but turn a blind eye to it.
Thus, when analyzing ancient artifacts, scientists often adjust the age to the criteria they need. So how can you believe in the official story after such small assumptions?
They fitted them there, then they adjusted them, the pyramid under the rule of Cheops was dated, and then all these assumptions accumulate in a snowball.
In our time, the mistakes of archaeologists have already begun to crawl out, and what will happen in a few decades if nothing changes?
I'm not touching on the age of the coal seams yet.
After all, what's the difference, the building was built 4 or 5 thousand years ago, the difference is only a thousand years, but the story turned out beautiful.
4. Ignoring facts
If we draw a small analogy, then historians in ignoring the facts were able to surpass even politicians. So many facts have now been collected that run counter to the official versions of history that it will take several days to recount them alone.
The situation is especially interesting with the Egyptian pyramids. People with technical education say one thing, but historians say another. Technicians rely on facts, while historians rely on concepts.
How can you believe in the official versions of history when they are proved by someone's faith contrary to the real fact.
5. Even historians cannot explain
There are individual cases in the world when even historians honestly admit that they cannot explain some technology or artifact.
This can be roughly attributed to the ancient structures in Peru.
True, historians still attribute all the finds to the Inca civilization, but they cannot explain their technology. Some miracles are obtained.
The Incas managed to reach incredible heights in architecture, and then they suddenly forgot everything. Moreover, the level of their architecture has reached such a high level that we, with modern knowledge, cannot understand and repeat their technologies.
For example, I have questions about how in antiquity there could have been such high technologies, and even repeated in different civilizations with a difference of millennia.
Modern history describes a simple version of evolution, when everything developed from simple to complex, and here we have objects that, by their very existence, destroy all these principles.
In the end, I want to say that in modern times you can only believe in facts. Of course, they can be interpreted in their favor, but often facts can be separated from someone else's version and draw their own conclusions.