Ra on the Easter Island Heads and Nazca Lines

[Bring4th_Austin]

I don't know how fruitful it would be to try to specifically reconcile Ra's record of history versus the traditionally accepted historical narrative. Someone who believes fully in the methods and people who practice archaeology and their interpretations will naturally have difficulty accepting Ra's words. The only evidence we have to support Ra's historical record is Ra's words. So far as I am aware, there haven't been any massive historical discoveries that undoubtedly support the alternative narrative that Ra gives (certainly things can be interpreted in certain ways), so it would only be valid for someone who believes the source for whatever reason. I think anyone who believes in the validity of the Law of One has a personal epistemology that is already at odds with the traditional scientific and historical communities.

For myself, as someone who would tend to trust at least the intentions of traditional archaeologists and historians, it creates a small amount of cognitive dissonance. My mind can always find excuses for why the archaeologists might be wrong and Ra might be right. For instance, the evidence presented for those two timelines are based on carbon dating of items found in the same area as the other artifacts. What would stop someone from placing eyes in the Easter Island heads thousands of years later? Why couldn't someone have placed the stakes around the Nazca lines long after they were actually created, perhaps in an effort themselves to determine their nature?

And, at the end of the day, archaeology and history is not a perfect science. It requires a lot of interpretation, and it can be surprising how influential the academic culture can be in determining how something is interpreted. There is little room for any narrative that doesn't fit the already-established tradition and record. Attempting to move outside of that establishment results in a virtual excommunication. In the same vein, if we hold the belief that Ra's words are valid, their own reporting of numbers (particularly time-frames) is far less than perfect and they could have made a mistake.

Yet I recognize that it is my belief in Ra's words, similar to the belief held by the academic community, that leads me to put any trust in Ra's historical record. So the most I can do is try to hold this bit of cognitive dissonance, not dismissing either narrative, accepting that different parts of my belief structure would lead to be put trust in one over the other and just hope that one day they won't be so at odds with each other.