In my articles, I often write that I question the versions of scientists and historians, why I do not believe them and what can they hide?
They can hide a huge amount of information that literally does not fit into the history of mankind, which they begin to teach us from a young age. We are told that this is how it was and we should not question what so many people are talking about.
But quite a few politicians talk about the growth of the Russian economy, about the absence of harm from sanctions and the insignificance of the dollar exchange rate, but is this really so? Do we live so well as the mighty of this world are trying to inspire? It's the same with science and history. Imagine that scientists recognize the existence of Atlantis or Hyperborea in the past? And what if they accept all the facts that nuclear wars could have taken place on Earth thousands of years ago?
And if people appeared as a result of genetic experiments of extraterrestrial civilizations, and not according to the theory of evolution? There is a huge amount of evidence for this, but scientists stand their ground. But what about artifacts that are millions of years old? Iron tools, footprints, millions of years old …
There is a huge amount of various evidences of highly developed civilizations in antiquity, but in order to recognize this, scientists need to rewrite the history of mankind, and who needs it? It's easier for them to deny everything and come up with excuses …
And if some facts of antiquity are recognized, then this can turn the opinion of most people about our world, and this is very dangerous for society and can create panic and not fake interest.
I believe the story is not at all what we are told. In my articles I give various reasons for this, but not everyone takes me seriously. But the readers who read me are the very reward that warms the soul. Thanks to those who read my "nonsense".
