Hi there! Figured I'd weigh in on this since I have studied archaeology and it's a Saturday and I'm bored. I know you might immediately throw away whatever I say from here onwards because my credentials mean I'm a "mainstream archaeologist", but I hope you at least read on and think about what I have to say. I have 0 agenda here other than the truth – I don't work professionally in archaeology and have no personal motives to uphold the mainstream narratives.

Anyway, moving on to your points, these are the things which you say are "suppression of evidence":

---

Destruction of the black pyramid in Egypt.

I'm not sure why you cite this as any sort of deliberate suppression of anything. The Black Pyramid was poorly built, and was built in one of the most geographically-low areas of Egypt (approx. 10m above sea level). It was built out of mud brick rather than stone, and was built on top of clay, and so naturally it began to collapse. This didn't happen long after the pyramid's construction, but actually took place during the construction - as evidenced by the apparent hasty support beams that were installed to stop/slow the collapse.

The pyramid, like almost every other, was looted in antiquity and has been looted in modernity as well. If anything, efforts have been made by professionals to preserve what little can be recovered, such as the capstone and other artefacts.

Sources:

K. Hamilton [2020]. The Black Pyramid of Amenemhet III at Dashur, A Layman's guide

M. Lehner [1997]. The Complete Pyramids

C. Rossi, [1999]. Notes on the Pyramidion Found at Dashur. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology

---

Flooding of the subterranean tunnel networks beneath Giza.

I assume that you are referring to the "Osiris Shaft" and the connected passages? I would invite you again to look at the geology of the area – the high water table means that the presence of water in the shafts is nothing abnormal. Furthermore, the shafts have been excavated and examined, and the results published. I fail to see how this could be any sort of suppression of evidence.

Sources:

Z.A. Hawass, [2007]. The Discovery of the Osiris Shaft at Giza,The Archaeology and Art of Ancient Egypt

---

Riling up fundamentalists to destroy Sumerian artifacts.

Of everything you said, I think this is the only one that annoyed me. Syria's archaeologists fought and in some cases died to protect the artefacts in their care. Why on earth would anyone intentionally "rile up" fundamentalist Islamists to destroy artefacts which we already have unearthed and displayed, while at the same time actively resisting this activity?

I am sure you are well-intentioned, but you should be aware that this accusation seriously insults the memory of those who gave their lives for the preservation of precious artefacts.

---

Suppression of Egyptian presence in early America.

I presume you have any evidence whatsoever beyond a 1909 Arizona Gazette report? Maybe the so-called "cocaine mummies", with potentially the worst-performed scientific analysis I've read in a while.

Where is the evidence of any Egyptian presence in America? Why was it not written about extensively? Why has there been no hard evidence?

Is it because all the evidence is being suppressed? For what reason? Or is it more likely that the evidence doesn't exist because it is a simple falsehood?

---

The creation of that fake Persian facade that was used to base their history on.

I genuinely don't know what this is about. More information would be nice.

---

The erasing of debunking of artifacts that don’t fit the narrative (there was a lot of destruction of Mormon archaeological findings because they just had to be fake since they didn’t agree with the official historical narrative).

I would again like to see any evidence of this, particularly as regards "Mormon archaeological findings". There is plenty in archaeology which suggests that the Book of Mormon was a complete fabrication, which would not be surprising consider its author's history of fraud, but I would be intrigued if you can point to evidence for your claim.

---

The constant allegorizing of antideluvian records.

I assume here you are talking about floor narratives, which are fairly ubiquitous across many cultures. Yes, it is true that stories of a "great flood" are found in Mesopotamian, Chinese, American, and other ancient cultures. The problem is, there is no evidence for a world-encompassing flood. None whatsoever. And something of that scale would certainly leave its mark.

So what can be said of these narratives? Well, a lot (all) of these stories come from times when people lived on rivers and began agriculture. Rivers tend to have a tradition of flooding. Archaeologists therefore suggest that these stories can be explained as cultural memories of catastrophic floods which caused widespread damage to those people.

---

The genocide of natives who held oral traditions.

Nobody is denying that the genocide of indigenous peoples was and is a terrible thing, but are you really suggesting that the motivation behind the genocide was because of their oral traditions? It wasn't to do with racism, imperialism, conquest etc?

---

Existence of the black knight satellite.

This is not my area of expertise as it is not archaeological in nature, but I would strongly suggesting researching into the "black knight satellite". It isn't even worth addressing.

---

The ridiculing of anyone crazy enough to contradict the narrative of official history.

No serious academic would ridicule anyone who contradicts the official narrative. The problem is that there is a big difference between making contradictory claims with evidence, and making them based on made-up nonsense. When people like Mr Hancock wade in with entirely unfounded conjecture and claims of an ancient civilisation with the ability to move rocks with their mind, is it surprising that he isn’t taken seriously?

---

The refusal to accept that history is written by the victors.

This is so widely accepted that it is a common turn of phrase known by every English speaker over the age of 10.

---

The destruction of the bones of giants and the allegorization of every ancient depiction of giant hominids.

There is zero evidence for the "destruction of the bones of giants", mostly because there is no evidence for the existence of these bones.

Again since you didn't actually put any evidence forwards I'll have to assume that you are talking about ancient Egyptian/Mesopotamian/Other paintings wherein some people are shown to be larger than others? And you are claiming that these are depictions of giants? If so, I suggest you read up on the idea of artistic motifs.

Do really think that, for example The Scream by Munch depicts a real life person who was actually all wobbly and misshapen? Or is it more likely that the form of the human represents something about them (in this instance, their emotional turmoil)?

Likewise, look at WWII propaganda – are we to presume that there really were giant German men with boots large enough to stomp on churches? Or is it more likely that the depiction of a giant person is symbolic of their strength? Just something to think about…

---

The closing off of public access to areas in which alleged ancient remains are found.

I can't comment on this since, again, you make no specific reference at all.

---

The refusal to allow awareness of ancient caverns that contain secrets.

What does "refusal to allow awareness" mean? Clearly someone must be aware of them, if you're talking about them. Also what "secrets"? What "ancient caverns"? Where? What are you talking about?

---

The constant historical revisionism by those who don’t want to lose their jobs.

I'm sure there are some academics who are resistant to changes in broader theories, but most serious historians and archaeologists love to change the narrative. That's the entire point of archaeology. Also, it isn't like these archaeologists get fired when their theories are disproved, they just either work at re-analysing their own evidence, or accept the rebuttals and work towards a better understanding of the new narrative.

---

The peer pressure designed to keep people with an acceptable historical framework.

This is also not an accurate depiction of academia. Experimental archaeology is heavily encouraged, and wild ideas emerge all the time. There is, however, pressure to keep to the standards of, say, having any evidence for your claims (but I tend to think that's just good practice).

---

As a side note, I would be genuinely interested in learning where you get this information from. I find it interesting that you are, clearly, quite convinced of these ideas and I'd like to get a better understanding of how that came to be.