Will Sandy Hook Conspiranoia Go Mainstream?

totallylegit

As reported last week by Salon, relatively normal people like twentysomething New Yorker Brendan Hunt are now embracing alternative Sandy Hook theories. They’re harassing interviewing witnesses, searching for other gunmen, and trying to tie the tragedy to secret societies and/or the military-industrial complex in any way possible.
Hunt is by no means a self-proclaimed messiah like Jay Johnson or a Fregoli delusion sufferer like Ed Chiarini. He’s smart, well-spoken, and…well…ordinary. With guys like him promoting Sandy Hook conspiranoia, Salon writer Alex Seitz-Wald argues, even more ordinary people will be persuaded to believe there’s “something not right” about the Newtown massacre.
The thing is, though, that Brendan Hunt already bought into some dodgy conspiracy theories before discovering Sandy Hook (Kurt Cobain was murdered, Illuminati stuff). He’s not exactly cut out to be a Pied Piper, leading the unsuspecting masses off to Kooklandia.
But Salon does have a valid point. Even the fringiest conspiracy theories do have a tendency to leach insidiously into the mainstream, like sludge from some ancient, poisoned well seeping into the ground water.

Here’s how weird conspiracy theories often work:

  1. Something notable happens.
  2. The media reports it, authorities investigate it, people talk about it, etc.
  3. Wingnuts crawl out of every hole to explain what really happened.
  4. Over time, the alternative theories become normalized, and relatively sane people feel comfortable embracing them, even though they still don’t make much sense.

This happened with the assassination of JFK and 9/11. It started with a handful of kooks suggesting that the dyslexic, troubled Lee Harvey Oswald was a crack CIA assassin, or that Israel’s Mossad engineered an aerial assault on America. Gradually, the theories metastasized into an ever-expanding industry of self-published books, seminars, conventions, documentaries, even Hollywood films. In the case of 9/11, entire social movements comprised of energetic young people sprouted from ideas that should, by all the laws of reason, have remained confined to the hidey-holes of a few eccentric curmudgeons. Today, most Americans believe JFK was the target of a conspiracy, and a vast number of people think there’s “something not right” about the 9/11 attacks. It can get to the point where conspiracists are considered skeptics or truth seekers, while anyone who insists on basing their conclusions on evidence are seen as naive, dishonest, or part of the conspiracy.

A few celebrity endorsements never hurt. When a daffy prosecutor decided in the late ’60s that Kennedy had been taken out by some sort of far-right lavender mafia, comedian Mort Sahl volunteered his services as a researcher, and Johny Carson welcomed him onto his show to unreel a barely-baked theory about fake railroad bums who turned out to be actual railroad bums. Yale-educated director Oliver Stone had no trouble recruiting an all-star cast for an execrable film that was supposed to expose the Warren Commission as a fraud.
A whole slew of celebs have publicly expressed support for 9/11 Truth: Rosie O’Donnell, the Sheen clan, Mos Def, David Lynch, Mark Ruffalo, Woody Harrelson, Willie Nelson.

Now we have Sandy Hook. While the Aurora massacre and countless other mass murders have spawned popular conspiracy theories, it’s Sandy Hook that really seems to have captured the hearts and imaginations of the conspiracy world. Let’s take a look at how the Sandy Hook conspiracy theories played out, using the model above:

  1. Adam Lanza allegedly entered Sandy Hook Elementary School In Newtown, Connecticut and opened fire, killing 20 children and 6 adults before shooting himself in the head.
  2. The story drew international media attention. Investigators concluded that Lanza likely acted on his own. There was a worldwide outpouring of sympathy and support for the families of victims , as well as a national outcry from people who wished to see assault weapons strictly controlled or banned in the U.S.
  3. Ed Chiarini, a Texas conspiranoid who believes everyone he sees in the media is actually someone else (the last pope was actually Robert Blake, John Stossel is actually Freddy Mercury, etc.), declared that some of the Newtown parents he saw on the news were actually actors hired by the government. A man calling himself New Age Messiah (real name Jay Johnson) set up a website called Sandy Hook Hoax to explain how the New World Order faked the entire massacre. An insanely popular video (since scrubbed from the Internet for copyright infringement) explained how a map of Gotham briefly displayed in The Dark Knight Rises “predictively programmed” the Newtown massacre. World Net Daily feebly attempted to link Lanza to devil worship, and speculated about a Satanic-cult conspiracy. Alex Jones stated on his radio show that the Sandy Hook massacre could be a government-staged event designed to usher in gun confiscation and draconian legislation (which he does after pretty much every massacre). Veteran JFK researcher and 9/11 Truther James Fetzer decided “Isreali death squads” were probably responsible. YouTube users created novelty songs and “documentaries” accusing rescuers, grieving parents, and investigators of being complicit in a massive conspiracy/cover-up.
    Most disturbingly, many of these people insist the murdered children are still alive.
  4. Fragments of “evidence”, such as an Ed Chiarini visual aid “proving” that two Newtown parents who appeared on news broadcasts are actually paid actors from Florida, began to pop up on social networking sites, divorced from their wider (crazier) context. Seen in isolation, some of this “evidence” can seem quite intriguing and persuasive. As more and more average people are exposed to these free-floating factoids that have landed in the public square, many of them will be persuaded to believe there’s “something not right” about the Newtown massacre. And a new conspiracy industry may be born. There aren’t any celebrity endorsements so far (Dick Gregory must be otherwise engaged), but if we don’t get a Vincent Bugliosi to nip this thing in the bud, we could soon be watching a 12-part History Channel series on The Men Who Did Sandy Hook.

Correction: Spoke too soon about Dick Gregory. Here he is explaining what really happened.

Advertisements

70 thoughts on “Will Sandy Hook Conspiranoia Go Mainstream?

  1. Very weak. We have to look at the specifics of each case.
    I’ve been thinking about the magic bullet, circa 1963. Went through two male bodies, ended up on gurney, unscratched. Sorry, that’s not believable. So you have two shooters….
    But it was the red-haired guy, passive, addled, helpless-looking, who surrendered and told cops about booby-trapped apt., who set me up for Sandy Hook. That guy did not pull Rambo in theater by himself. Also, there was clear video of huge trail of blood behind theater. He wasn’t wounded. Obama went out there and claimed some woman with a small neck wound was carried across TWO parking lots, apparently trying to establish a source for blood. Sorry, that’s not believable. Lamer than lame. So you have two shooters…
    Truth is, if our media were still reporting, they would demolish the official versions of these events in a week.

    • Seriously? The “Magic Bullet” was a result of the power of the rifle that Oswald used and the semi-unusual placement of the seating in the Limo. President and Mrs. Kennedy were slightly elevated compared to the Governor, and Kennedy was turned slightly when the bullet hit him, his coat blowing slightly in the wind causing the bullet to pierce the lapel of the jacket twice. The bullet passed through Kennedy at a downward angle and continued on to the Governor who, as I stated, was at a lower elevation due to the style of the limo. This has been proven time and time again yet STILL people refuse to believe it and refer to the perfectly normal bullet as “magic.” That, my good sir, is what’s unbelievable.

      As for Sandy Hook, your example is referring to Aurora, Colorado, not Sandy Hook Elementary School, CT. Two completely different incidents. Also, how is a woman with a neck wound (which, might I add bleed like a MOTHERFUCKER due to some major arteries in that locale) being carried across two parking-lots unbelievable? Also, if no one claimed to have injured a shooter (which no one did) how does the trail of blood even remotely indicate a second shooter? Maybe in fantasy land where you clearly live it does, but in reality it suggests that a wounded victim escaped through the back entrance. Which is likely AND corroborated by the report of the victim with a neck wound which, as I said, bleed like crazy.

      Conspiracy proponents are always telling the general public to “wake up.” In reality, I think it’s about time that someone threw a bucket of cold water in YOUR faces because these theories are only remotely possible in your dreams.

  2. It’s always a good idea to remember who the most outrageous and crazy conspiracy theorists are in society, so when they start endorsing *yet another* conspiracy theory we know better than to just take them at their word.

    I am of course talking about the government and the mainstream media who’s record of conspiracy theorising includes (but is not limited to) the THEORY that Saddam Hussein was CONSPIRING with his military to secretly manufacture WMD’s and use them against the west with an alleged 45 minute strike capability. The promoters of this conspiracy theory managed to drum up enough conspiracy paranoia to buy a bunch of weapons (with money stolen from as-yet-unborn generations as it happens) and get thousands of young men and women to go and murder at least A MILLION PEOPLE in Iraq with depleted uranium WMD’s (which have led to massive epidemic of birth defects and the poisoning of the water table for centuries to come) in an attempt to somehow stop this alleged conspiracy.

    And as we all know this conspiracy theory was later proven to be wrong. And as we all know the main promoters of this conspiracy theory (Blair and Bush) were eventually found guilty of war crimes under the terms of the Geneva Convention (the same terms used to convict Nazi war criminals).

    So the next time the government and media try to convince you of a conspiracy theory – just remember their track record in this area…… (ie causing genocide based on lies)

    Other crazy government/ media conspiracy theories include Dr Evil style secret bases and children hiding bombs in their underpants….. now THAT’S super what I call super paranoid!

    (putting on a special costume and spending all day long groping children’s genitals from explosives has got to count as WAY MORE paranoid than just wearing a tin foil hat in the privacy of your own home).

    And of course we must not forget the government / media endorsed conspiracy theory which defined the whole genre and set the standard……. this.

    These government/ media conspiracy theories are so ridiculous they even have to invent various fake truther movements and controlled opposition groups and ‘alternative’ media outlets to promote a bunch of equally ridiculous nonsense – otherwise they’d be the only ones doing it!

    It’s all about creating a false choice to encourage public consumption …. if you don’t like vile Pepsi you can always have vile Coke….. if you don’t like being ruled by the Right wing of government you can always choose to be ruled by the Left wing of government….. and if you don’t believe the official conspiracy theory you can always choose to believe the official alternative conspiracy theory.

    In this new information age empirical evidence can no longer be simply blocked (censored) … these days it can only be obscured by drowning it in a sea of white noise, nonsense and distraction.

    • The “government” didn’t conspire to make up the WMD, Bush and his slightly smarter ‘brain’ Rummy did. Both of them still insist, to this day, that we just somehow “missed” them, or couldn’t find them, or they where teleported off the planet, or who the frak knows what, but that they, “Had to have been there!”. This is another problem with conspiracy theorists – Its never sufficient to actually get the facts straight, if ignoring them, and claiming that thousands of people all “conspired” to hide the truth makes them feel special, or lets them reinforce their “theory” that, when you can’t manage to get two people in a conspiracy most times, without one of them telling someone else, a government, which can’t even agree to pass legislation that they themselves wrote, or making shit up about each other, or calling each other out over both real and imaginary things, etc., if a black man in president, are all “hiding” the truth about .9/11, Iraq, Kennedy, the moon landing, aliens, area 51, the MIB, and who the hell knows what else… It would be almost a more believable claim to accuse the lot of you people of being incompetent foreign spies, whose job is to try to convince the public that our government isn’t incompetent, corrupt, unable to work together, and filled with way too many complete idiots, but, no, is in fact all mega-geniuses, who are selling us out to reptilian space aliens. (And, I am sure at least one group of fools out there claim this is the case.)

      No one can be so disconnected from the facts, unless they have another agenda, or they are unbelievably uninformed, or delusional, or, just plain insane.

      On the other hand – The Un definitely rode dinosaurs against Charley Chaplain during WWII, and no one will ever convince me otherwise! So, nah! (Heh, it makes about as much sense as the whole government conspiring the make up WMD, instead of a two idiots, and a handful of people scare to lose their jobs, if they didn’t make shit up for them, like really happened, and as we have actual proof of now. You know.. unlike all the complete lack of such evidence of all the other “government conspiracies” people insist are also real…)

      • “…The “government” didn’t conspire to make up the WMD…”

        I did not say that. I said the government and mainstream media promoted a conspiracy theory about Saddam Hussein and WMD’s. The conspiracy theory I was referring to was the conspiracy theory about Saddam Hussein which was heavily promoted by the government and the media.

        “…This is another problem with conspiracy theorists – Its never sufficient to actually get the facts straight…”

        Why do you accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist when I was not promoting a conspiracy theory? I was talking about *someone else’s* conspiracy theory – namely the conspiracy theory promoted by the government and the media (the one about Saddam Hussein and WMDs).

        That’s not my conspiracy theory, it’s theirs. They were the ones who promoted it, not me. Do you see?

        And they were the ones who got their facts wrong, not me. No evidence of WMD’s was ever found …. in other words, their conspiracy theory was proven to be wrong.

      • Ok.. To be fair, Bush and his host of morons where sort of “the government” at the time. I would say that Fox “definitely” promoted it. Some of the other parts of the media questioned it, pointed out the problems with the idea, etc. Other parts of it, CNN, for example, took the middle road, like they always do, and, “Told both sides.”, figuring that their job isn’t to inform the public of the truth, but rather to just “inform the public”. In other words, a lot of the media had gotten it into their heads that its perfectly fine, no, in fact **proper** for the news to consist of reporting that, say Wikipedia says X about subject Y, but that Conservapedia says Z about Y, without any bloody interest in which one got it right.

        No, the media didn’t conspire, except maybe Fox, which is noted for promoting what ever stupid BS the right wants people to believe via their fake news talk shows, then quoting their own talk shows, as factual, during the actual news programs. What they did was simply – not call them on it, in some few cases, even now that we know the facts.

        That’s not conspiracy, its incompetence.

        But, my main error, or both of ours, is in confusing which “conspiracy” we are talking about here. You are talking about their claim of a “conspiracy” to hide WMD, by Saddam. I was referring to the theory that there was a conspiracy to promote this, when they knew damn well it wasn’t true. Completely different conspiracies, in other words, and I presumed you where promoting the idea that there was more than a handful of clowns, and a lot of people being told, “We don’t want to hear that, so we will instead listen to this other nut, who claims it is true.”, involved in making up the story.

        Basically, Saddam hiding something, was believable. What he was hiding, turned out to be wrong. But, the reality is, Bush and Co. wanted it to be true, so they found people that would tell them it was true, including one foreign national, who claimed it was, while ignoring everyone else. Incompetence, refusal to see the truth and/or a refusal of other parties to speak up against the people promoting the idea, isn’t conspiracy, its idiocy. So.. no “real” conspiracies involved in any part of it, just the same delusional crap we keep hearing from the same talking heads, the same Faux News people, etc.

        That was my point, and I am sorry that I thought you where referring to what Bush and Co. was doing, not what they claimed Saddam was doing.

    • Amazing how you managed to say and contribute absolutely nothing in several paragraphs. But managed to use the word ‘conspiracy’ about fifteen times.

      At the end of the day Sandy Hook was a staged event that has been proven and substantiated from about 100 different angles with no effort whatsoever made to address or debunk.

      There is no Sandy Hook conspiracy. There is only complicity, fraud and propaganda and the person or group responsible. All else is a waste of everyone’s time.

  3. You prove my point for me. Not one shred of scientific evidence can you present that backs your claims. All you believe you have are grade school level “I know you are, but what am I.” dribble. You can throw mud all you want, but know this, IM NOT GOING ANYWHERE, AND I’M NOT PLAYING YOUR GAME. Now if you would like to debate the issue, I would be more then happy to provide you with the evidence that thousands of other see and agree with, according to the correspondence I get on a daily basis. The choice is yours, and since you think I’m so crazy I’m sure you will jump at this offer so you can easily prove yourself. Or maybe you will do what they have done for the past 2 and a half years, Open their traps just so they can insert their foot and fall back in the hole they crawled out from.

    Do you think you are the first to attempt to call me a liable name?
    You are nothing more then the toilet paper I wipe my ass with then flush along with the rest of those I ate for breakfast.

    You game, or are you just another road hump? burp.

    • Please allow me to use your own “evidence” against you. The facebook page you were so kind to link your name to has an interesting picture for the banner image. Let us use that as our example. The man on the left has black hair, dark eyes, and bushy black eyebrows. The man on the right has red hair, light green eyes, and thin red eyebrows. Alright, all of those things can be modified with simple costume. However, assuming that you are right and one or the other guise is his “true” face, it would have to be the man on the right because dark hair would have to be bleached before being dyed red, especially that light of a shade. That would effect the shade of the hair and make it look MUCH less natural. Also dark eyes do not show colored contacts well. However, even if we assume that the man on the right is the “true” face, your theory falls apart because the two men have vastly different jaw and eyebrow bone structures. The cause of the resemblance in your picture is that the man on the right has his mouth open and is speaking. If his mouth were closed, you would see a more rounded facial shape. The shape of his eyebrows is also different, albeit slightly. You see sir, the problem with your theory is that a LOT of people “look like” other people. It’s common enough that phone manufacturers warn against using facial recognition to unlock your phone. The trick is not to look for the similarities, as with fingerprints, but the differences. That is how our brains know that our friends are our friends, not random strangers. Next time you’re out with friends, look around and see how many people “look like” them, and my point is proven.

  4. Oh, you charmer, you!
    I’m afraid there’s little to debate, though. Since you are the one and only person claiming such things as “Winston Churchill was actually Lionel Barrymore”, the burden of proof is upon you to prove that one man could run a war-ravaged country and portray Dr. Kildare at the same time. And so on.

  5. Re JFK, try “an obviously paranoid conspiracy theorist” called James Shelby Downard and his essay, King Kill/33. It’s free, via wiki. Super-impose his nonsense over the Boston massacre, for example, and you might be surprised.

    Re Church-ill, he allegedly obtained his V for victory slogan from Aleister Crowley in order to combat “Hitler’s” (lol) swastika.

    Alex Jones – dodgy, like Icke etc. etc. Most “conspiracy theorists realise that.

    Once you have read KK/33 (won’t take too long) ,what do you make of Prince Harry visiting Hurricane Sandy’s remains today, whilst David Cameron (British Prime Minister) visits Boston. Given today, May 14th, is the anniversary of the founding of Jamestown – the first UK colony in the USA, named after James 1st (and 6th of Scotland) – the Bible reviser ? (I can expand, being Scottish)

    Note that the first Jamestown residents were cannibals, well versed in human blood :

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22362831

    You, or my old friend Schwarherz, will maybe know that the last Boston “brother” was “captured” – after a three step, blood saturated, climb – on a boat called the Slip Away 2 ? If you need to know more about the three step “hooodwinking”, check your local “masonic” lodge – there is bound to be one.

    Another rash of coincidence ?

    yours, cheers,

    • I don’t know why I’m bothering to reply to you anymore, but, here goes. How do you know it was “three steps”? The boat was wrapped for the winter, if there were three steps into it, it probably would have taken him a good 6 plus some stumbles to get into it properly. Especially being blood soaked. And what, exactly, do you claim to be the significance of “Slip Away 2”?

      Also I would like you to explain what your problem seems to be with the Masons. Is it that they are a secretive organization who is actually selective about their inclusion process? It’s a well known fact that the Masons have some secrets known only to members, but that can be said about nearly any other fraternal organization. Why the problem with the Masons? I can assure you they have no “New World Order” agenda. My own grandfather and a very good friend of mine are both Masons and, to date, have never tried to take over the world even once (shocking, I know). If half the crap you spew about the Masons is true, that must be quite the achievement considering that my Grandfather is 84 years old. It seems to me that you may have some sour grapes. Did you attempt to join and they told you no? I imagine they found your mental fortitude lacking.

      • Hiya, the three steps is here, from the horses mouth ;

        http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/23/us/boston-attacks-boat-owner/index.html

        Slip Away 2 is obvious, given the alleged perpetrators and their “slipping away”. Maybe someone else got away ? I see someone else allegedly connected got blasted by the FBI today.

        I don’t have a problem with any mason, per se, it’s just the ones at the bottom of their pyramid – like maybe Grandfather & pal – are being hoodwinked. How can you assure me of the top level agenda, how do you know that perhaps you too are being hoodwinked ?

        PLEASE let me know what you mean by “half the crap” -so I can respond accordingly – and no, I never attempted to join, you have to be asked, although maybe I have been. Maybe I declined, maybe they have nothing to offer me, I don’t get my kicks from fraternal secretive cliques, who’s members never question their alleged bosses, but mearly pay dues.

        Maybe someone else’s mental fortitude is lacking, The truth hurts, often unconsciously I am led to believe.

        cheers

      • To conspiracy believers, there are no coincidences, accidents, ironic associations, etc. They whole universe, to them, **must** somehow connect together, such that merely finding a dollar bill that someone wrote their own name on, for example, would “instantly” mean that, “The government was personally watching them!”, or some stupid BS like that.

        In short, they are all, basically, the character Rorschach, from Watchmen. They might not all be right wing wackos, but instead, left wing wackos, but they all share the same problem. ***Everything*** had to be connected for them, somehow, even when it isn’t, and, unfortunately for both us, and them, this leads to being completely bloody blind about real conspiracies that are going on, because they are too damn busy chasing around the completely insane, convoluted, improbable “connections” they see, to actually notice what is really happening. Ocham’s Razor is, literally, to them, less reasonable than, I suppose you could say, Rube Goldberg’s Razor.

  6. Not only have I read King Kill 33 Degrees, I read Doward’s Carnival of LIfe and Death…literally the most insane, least coherent memoirs ever committed to paper. It’s quite entertaining. I especially liked the part where Downard was ambushed by Tom Mix on a bridge.

    • I’ve not read COLD, but I do like Downard’s KK. It maybe is the work of a madman but he makes some valid points. There is a king coming, that’s my point. cheers

  7. @ Kagehi

    “..To conspiracy believers, there are no coincidences, accidents, ironic associations, etc…”

    The same is true of scientists, detectives and mathematicians.

    • Uh.. Sorry, but no, sorry. Scientists, detectives and mathematicians recognize that their is something called “noise”, and that you need to find the signal to get any place. The more you expand your theory, or search area, or formula, to grow more complex, and add in more things, without a clear, justifiable, reason to do so, the more noise you pick up along with the signal. Since noise ***always*** exists in much larger amounts than does signal, this results in you not getting any place at all.

      There are whole cases, for example, in the field of detectives, which went unsolved (and some that may still be), purely because the noise led them off in some direction that an overlooked piece of evidence would have stopped them from looking. They where led there, not because they didn’t have evidence, but because the evidence they where paying attention to led them the wrong way. This is true, as well, of many people still in prison, who where innocent of the crime they where convicted of. The “evidence”, what there was of it, seemed to lead to one conclusion, but.. it was incomplete, so the noise (i.e., happenstance) led to conviction, even when they didn’t actually do it.

      This happens in science as well. There are many hypothesis, and even a few, seemingly, almost solid theories that have been thrown out, because better understanding of which things are noise, and which are signal, resulted in the evidence shifting the other way. The whole entire idea of “double blinding” is based on this – remove as much noise as you possibly can, including the biases of the researchers, so that your study isn’t overwhelmed by the noise in the system. Heck, the guy that came up with the idea of anti-oxidants recently had to completely reverse his position, when he eliminated the noise, by going straight to the genetic mechanisms involved, and found that when animals didn’t produce their own natural ones, they lived 25% longer, and that “taking” those supplements, instead of actually extending their life, erased that 25% of extra life span they now had. The same guy did both studies. The first one – got swallowed by the noise, and, as a result of people who jump on every scrap of information they can find, and assume its definitive, we have an entire industry of drinks, supplements, etc., which is either a) doing nothing at all to help us, or b) possibly, for those people who may have, ironically, defective genes, which don’t produce normal levels of anti-oxidant, killing us faster.

      Noise exists. The whole job of all three of the types of people you mention is to bloody try to remove as much noise as possible, in order to find the real signal. You do the exact opposite. You embrace the noise, and, in doing so, lose all capacity to recognize what the signal actually is. No, worse than that, you often intentionally filter out the signal, because it doesn’t support your complicated web of hypothetical connections, as though it was the noise. The damned banks did the same thing with the housing bubble, ignoring all the signs that they where wrong, and the coherent picture it built, because “it didn’t fit the model they wanted to follow”. Sadly, most of Wall Street has still not learned that leason.

      • Also, given your fairly lengthy reply previously, what is your take on human evolution. Science or conspiracy ?, given there is no “missing link” as yet, whilst it is taught in schools as fact. Why do you think that is ?

        cheers

      • My “take” Newspaceman is that some people need to get it through their heads that, while “fossils” where once very useful in providing data to prove the theory, it didn’t hinge on them, aside from “obvious” things, like how finding the wrong sort of animal, in the wrong geologic strata, might have been a tad inconvenient, and that, since DNA came along, its an almost totally meaningless source of new information on the subject.

        But, just to be clear, your “missing link” is just the latest “gap” in a list. Its not ever going to be found, simply because no matter how many links you fill in, short of having every skeleton, from every single animal, in the entire genetic line, of a specific specimen, there is always going to be one, or more, skeletons “missing”. Or.. Let me put it another way. Its like arguing that their is absolutely no relation, at all, between a coin minted in 1792 and one minted in 2013, because you can’t find a quarter with “In God We Trust” on it, from 1864, and none of those you are looking at, all the way back to the very first minting, have it either. In that case, your “missing link” would actually be the 1864 two cent piece, which I seriously doubt there is many, if any, left of, the first, and only coin, until 1956, when McCarthy insisted on adding the phrase to all of them.

        Fossils don’t tend to survive. It takes very specific conditions for them to do so, and yet, despite this, we still keep filling in gaps in the record, little by little, and now, we can, if we can get our hands of bits of DNA here and there, trace changes, within those that do exist. It may, at some point, be possible to even simulate what the result of those transitions looked like. But, unfortunately, DNA, in reality, isn’t a nice, clean, computer program. It works via a loose sort of response system, where how much, when, and where a particular amount of some chemical is present changes how, what, and how much, of any specific part of it gets executed. The whole entire system, from “boot up” works that way, changing, twisting, adapted, purely on the basis of relative locations, amounts of resources, etc. You can’t drop it into a computer, and “run” it. You have to treat it like weather – as a statistical model, with trends, which follows a set of rules. So.. its going to be a long time before we can just drop in DNA, into a program, and have it “generate” what the species looked like. However, that doesn’t mean we can’t look at the DNA and say, “No other species except humans, and X past species, had exactly 4 copies of this gene, and the exact same mutations, and the exact same promoters, in the exact same place, etc., with only a few small differences.

        The missing link isn’t any more missing that a frame of video taken out of a movie causes the start and end of the movie to be from different movies. Even if you remove 100 frames, or a thousands, its still possible to “guess” that it was the same movie. That something is missing between doesn’t mean a bloody thing, unless you literally do not comprehend anything other than fossils, or you somehow imagine that most of the people in the field see them, today, as anything more than one **tiny** part of the data supporting it. This is especially true if you have many other lines of evidence, like a script, the camera both where filmed on, both where done in the same location, both had the same stars, etc., etc., etc. **Multiple Lines Of Evidence**

        Oh, and, besides that, nearly everything in modern medicine, if its not purely mechanical, is now “derived” from assumptions about common descent, and thus, how certain changes in DNA give rise to diseases, how to find/detect them, or what chemicals are needed to treat them, etc. If there was “no” commonality between species, we would still be picking random chemicals, and injecting them into things, in the hope they did something, instead of looking at the genetics and going, “Ok, so this specific enzyme does this specific thing in Chimps, when we look at the same place in humans, what will the differences be, and how does that effect why they don’t get X disease, but we do?” Without commonality, 90% of all modern bio-science would have never happened. It relies on common descent, to be able to predict that a gene will be where it is supposed to be, and do what is is supposed to do, whether they are looking at an ape, or a fruit fly, or a sea sponge. No one, except those apposed to the idea of evolution, give a damn about missing links any more, or, at least any more than one would if they where trying to find the one missing card for a baseball collection.

        Finding it, would be nice, not finding it, doesn’t surprise anyone who knows how unlikely is is that such a thing was even preserved in the first place, and no one, with a detailed understanding of all the sciences now involved, would deny a connection, based on what is known, any more than they would deny that a 747 is a heavily modified version of what the Write Brothers flew, unless, they simply chose to deny that they are both airplanes, and insisted that they are “so different” that they are the equivalent comparing a pigeon to a bat. Heck, even the Catholics are willing to, almost, sort of, as long as they get to claim man isn’t one of the things that evolved, admit its true, and the are hardly historical harbingers of anything other than holding onto a cliff, in denial of the fall below them, right up until reality steps on their fingers, and a slip to the next ledge down.

  8. Oh, and since you are bound to ignore reality, and claim that, somehow, the housing bubble was also part of some vast conspiracy, maybe an explanation of what really goes on in people’s heads, when ignoring reality, in statistics, would help. Probably not, but.. hope spring eternal:

    http://www.amazon.com/dp/159420411X

    • Kagehi, it is interesting you mention the “housing bubble”. Back in the 80’s, in the UK, I worked for HBOS (then Halifax), in the mortgage lending front line. Just before the then crash, we were lending monies willy-nilly, 100% loans, 85% commercial loans, 4 x joint income loan multiplies etc. etc.

      One day we got a memo from head office: no more of the above, max 2 x joint income, no 100%’s etc. etc.

      Hardly anyone was eligible. Other lenders “closed their doors” in the same manner at the same time. House prices fell; basic economics, supply and demand – there was little demand as very few could obtain lending.

      Over the next 20 or so years the restrictions became relaxed, until we had another free for all, followed by another door-shut.

      It was exactly the same pattern, maybe you could shed some light on that..,

      Maybe also too, on what entity the left and right wings you refer to, belong to ?

      Bear in mind too, that in the real, natural world, everything is connected in some manner.

      What do you make of Jung’s “synchronicity” and his rationale behind it ?

      cheers

  9. Corporations change hands a lot, and each change of hands has its own “theory” about how things actually work. The reality is, they are all playing with “models”, but, as the book explains, they are models only in the same sense that Alchemy described Chemistry. They don’t understand their own mechanisms, their own variables, etc. They keep making predictions, which over the short term *appear* to work, and make models built on that, then when some other variable they are not paying attention to shifts unexpectedly, the whole thing collapses, and they change models again, and again, they don’t know all the variables, they don’t know how it all connects, and they have no clue if the apparent “driving forces” they see in the model actually reflect the real world. Economic “theory” hasn’t progressed much at all in centuries, and its still populated by people doing the equivalent of trying to predict general relativity, using Newtonian formula.

  10. @ Kagehi

    Fossils have been found which show us hundreds of thousands of species stretching back to the earliest bacteria. Yet not one fossil has ever been found of a ‘missing link’…. not for humans/ pre humans …. and not for any other species either.

    The ONLY kind of evolution which has ever been shown with actual evidence is micro-evolution (small adaptations to the local environment). These are just ‘tweaks’ and not radical re-writes of the animal which change it into a totally different animal.

    There is simply no EVIDENCE to support macro-evolution. You are perfectly free to promote this theory, but you cannot claim to be promoting science. It is just an idea – the idea that ‘nature can do anything, and everything we can’t explain with evidence was somehow done by nature’. This idea is no different to the idea that ‘god can do anything, and everything we can’t explain with evidence was somehow done by God’.

    You are a ‘true believer’, just like creationists, except that your faith is Darwinism.

    One reason why the establishment science community won’t admit they can’t explain how humans and other animals and plants came into existence (and that the theory of macro-evolution is not supported by the evidence) is that if they do admit this the creationists will claim victory. They might even start insisting creationism, rather than Darwinism, is taught in schools.

    So you have these two fanatical groups who are stuck in their evidence-free belief systems. Neither are willing to admit the truth, and as a result both are holding back knowledge, progress and civilisation as a whole.

    The EVIDENCE tells us that we did NOT evolve from apes. Apes evolved into Neanderthals and other uprights. Four varieties are still being reported today in the wilderness and thousands of casts of their footprints have been taken as well as a few photos and films.

    Humans (and domestic plants and animals) appeared out of nowhere, and very recently. Not only is there no missing link, there is no TIME for there to BE a missing link. In reality we would need perhaps 30 distinct missing links to even begin to account for the HUGE differences between (so called) ‘pre-humans’ and humans. We are vastly different in every conceivable respect.

    The EVIDENCE points to us being interfered with at the genetic level, perhaps crossed with some alien species. That would explain why we are so vastly different and at such a fundamental level – such as why two of our chromosomes are fused to give us 46 instead of the 48 which all other ‘pre-humans’ and apes have.

    I recommend researching the work of Lloyd Pye. I’m sure even Darwin himself would admit he was wrong about macro-evolution in the light of all of the new evidence.

    • Trying to convince yourself, or me? Because, your long list of nonsense above is just flat out wrong, and the only way you can come to such a conclusion is if you are getting your “science” from places like “Answers in Genesis”, instead of from actual scientists.

      As for things like fused chromosomes, that has been seen in other places as well, though it is rare, and.. your assertion that it has something to do with aliens… WTF? How the hell is that supposed to be an explanation. Mating with an alien causes ***100% identical*** sections of code to “fuse”, without adding anything else at all, to any of the genetic sequences, and without adding in any alien DNA of any kind… I am laughing my ass off here. And, no, fusing them does ***not*** change their expression, at all, since genes are not expressed by reading the DNA like a cassette tape. It is “transcribed”, like data on a digital media. In other words, it actually contains “stop” and “start” sequences, a mess of NOP codes, and jump instructions, so if you actual code looked like AGGTGH The DNA might look like

      Start-AG-NOP-NOP-NOP-GT-NOP-NOP-G-Jump:Next
      Next-NOP-NOP-H-NOP-Stop

      Fusing such code together doesn’t change anything, unless, in the process, you accidentally delete a “Start” or “Stop” sequence. But, when “run”, all the system cares about, to work, is if the “transcribed” chemical is AGGTGH, and, since its a chemical system, and not digital, its often not terribly picky if, by accident, the result is AGGTCH, or AAGTGH, or some other “minor” variation.

      So, before claiming aliens are involved, or worse, creationism, or denying evolution on the basis of a, probably forever, incomplete, but as of yet not even all searched out, fossil record, show me ***any*** evidence at all that any of your alternatives explain jack all of anything (or, for that matter, that one scrap of actual evidence exists for them).

      And, frankly, if you want to continue arguing the point, there are *much* better places, like, say.. blogs dedicated to biology and genetics, not ones dedicated to conspiracy. I know enough to know you are flat wrong, and seriously confused, but I am hardly qualified to give clear, and accurate, descriptions of why. I am an amateur, with a strong interest in the research, not an expert. Go bug a bloody expert, and.. hope they have more patience than I do.

      Hint: One really quick way to piss them off, is to claim that 200 yeas of research into a scientific theory, with hundreds of lines of evidence, thousands of research papers, and tens of thousands of real discoveries, not one of which “creation” could have even implied where possible, never mind led to, is the equivalent of, “We have no idea how any of it works, and we find it confusing, so lacking either an explanation, a mechanism, or any way to test any of it, we propose that aliens, or god, or maybe both, did it, *by magic*.” But, if you really want them to call you a complete bloody fool, I suggest the old creationist canard of, “Since I don’t see fish magically turning into birds, in a single generation, your theory of millions of years of tiny, nearly imperceptible, changes is wrong, and my hypothesis that they where just magically poofed into existence, as is, must be right!”

      Oh, and, just to be clear, “aliens” is either an attempt at misdirection (i.e., god made the aliens, by poofing them into being, since evolution isn’t possible), or an admission that evolution would have “still” had to happen somewhere else, and that the aliens, despite a total lack of evidence that any such thing happened, “engineered” the bloody idiot mess we see in DNA. Either way, you are either required to allow that it happened “someplace else”, but not here, or that “magic” was involved, somehow (magic, in this case, does not mean “technology”, nor does it mean, “some other process”, because if it did, it would require one of you bozos to explain who made the aliens, or what process, other than evolution, happened to cause the aliens. Either way, you haven’t explained anything, haven’t provided an alternative, and don’t have any evidence *at all*.) Alien… Just another fraking would be magician, trying to convince people that know better, that they really are levitating people, using a funny hat and a magic wand. I think, with that silly nonsense, I at least, am entirely done here.

      • Like I said, because there is no actual evidence to support the macro-evolution theory you can only defend it by getting very emotional, aggressive and attempting to divert attention away from salient points – which is precisely what you did.

        And as I said, there simply isn’t time for humans to have evolved from apes. There would need to be dozens of missing links, stretched over a far longer time period. And our puny, genetically flawed bodies do not suggest natural selection – they suggest genetic modification. Unlike every other animal on earth, we do not seem to be very well adapted to the physical environment here on earth.

        The fact that our 48 chromosomes have been fused to make 46 is just one extra piece of evidence which lends itself to the idea that we’ve been genetically engineered. You can propose a theory that this happened by chance if you like, but you cannot use it as evidence of macro-evolution. This means you still have no evidence of macro-evolution. ‘Shouting’ and throwing a tantrum won’t help you win the argument either.

        As soon as we learned how to manipulate DNA what did we do? We started manipulating the DNA of other animals for our own selfish purposes. So LOGICALLY any race which visited earth would likely have the technology to manipulate DNA (after all they’ve got the technology to travel to earth). So it’s not unthinkable that they might genetically manipulate the animals and plants they found living on earth. This is precisely what the Sumerians wrote about. They were a highly advanced civilisation that sprung up ‘out of nowhere’. They said they and their high civilisation were created by ‘the gods’ who came down from the sky. The Sumerians even wrote about the solar system and accurately described the outer planets – thousands of years before modern scientists ‘discovered’ them.

        Remember, there is hard, irrefutable evidence of highly advanced civilisations existing on this planet 10’s of thousands of years ago. There are stone monuments all over the world which we could not build today, even with our supposed ‘advanced’ technology. We could not even DISMANTLE some of them with our present level of technology.

        So obviously ‘somebody’ was around 10’s of thousands of years ago with super-duper technology. The evidence is literally set in stone.

        Darwinism, natural selection and survival of the fittest all fit the ruling classes’ propaganda of ‘the church of progress’. This religious/ cult describes the world in terms of a linear progression from bacteria to fish to reptiles to mammals to cave-men to modern man. The conclusion (as taught in schools all over the world) is that at any moment in time we are BY DEFINITION experiencing the epitome of human achievement and are at the peak of human civilisation.

        This idea can be irrefutably proved wrong in five minutes just by showing a picture of one of those stone blocks. So why is ‘the church of progress’ still taught in schools? The answer is that it makes the population far less likely to ever question the establishment and the ruling classes….. the idea we’re all trained to believe is that things are always getting better, we are climbing this mountain of ‘progress’ and utopia is always right around the corner.

        The church of progress trains us to never question REALITY (the perpetual wars, famine, economic collapses, tyranny, oppression, corruption, environmental destruction, social dysfunction etc) and to focus instead on a MADE UP BELIEF SYSTEM where things are great, the future is bright and our reward for living as slaves to the ruling class and putting up with their criminal behaviour (ie some kind of Star Trek style scientific utopia) is always just around the corner….

        This makes modern day establishment science (and the wider ‘church of progress’) just another cult/ religion of control and no different to the older god-based religions where we all lived like cattle but got our ‘reward’ in heaven.

        Heaven has been taken out of the sky above and relocated to ‘the future’ which is in front of us. When politicians talk of ‘moving forward’ they are just like the priests who used to talk about ‘rising up to heaven’. They are offering you an imaginary carrot while beating you with a very real stick. And you appear to have fallen for it.

        ANY scientist (or fan of modern science) who cannot SEE the 1000+ ton blocks of perfectly cut and placed granite in ancient sites like Giza or Baalbeck and realise the scientific world view is nonsense is no different to the religious fanatic who can’t SEE fossils and realise the creationist’s world view is nonsense, too.

        You are just as bad as each other. And just like them you cannot SEE your own indoctrination… as is the nature of indoctrination.

      • :rofl:

        And.. Instead of going some place, like I suggested, where they are actually qualified to address his points, instead of trying to argue with someone who can’t, he wanders off into pyramid gibberish, and yet more assertions of how a church, which doesn’t give a damn about evidence, just dogma, has all the facts, and that any day now scientists are going to abandon thinking.

        I am still waiting for an explanation of how these “aliens” managed to come into being, without some sort of evolution like mechanism. And, if you think DNA was engineered, then man… you really don’t have even the tiniest clue. I have seen it described, by nearly everyone who does know, as, “If this was engineered, then the engineer was a complete idiot.” Why? Because how it works is more Rube Goldbergian than anything else. You have processes that shouldn’t be even remotely related “dependent” on the same promoters, other processes that would make sense to be related, which are completely disconnected from each other, etc. There is no rhyme or reason for how most of it is put together, and one of the biggest frustrations for people trying to cure genetic diseases *is* the fact that you can’t fix A without effecting B, C and D, and possibly making things even worse. All you have is assertions, based on, quite frankly, too much imagination, not enough understanding, and a desperate need for your “church” to finally have some sort of correct answers for something.

        Angry? No, just not willing to waste my time explaining things that are already explained, including addressing everything, up to, and including, how the bloody pyramids where built (when you can’t defend one asserting, tack on 50 irrelevant ones, and then insist they are somehow connected, via some crazy assed expanded theory, right? Rube Goldberg’s Razor indeed..). I have better things to be doing than hunting down things readily available to someone who **wants** to understand, then having them ignore them anyway, which is generally how these conversations end up going. Betting the “aliens” who built the pyramids where really Transfomers, right? lol

        Well, at least you are good for a laugh, if not much else.

      • I love when you run across and article to prove a point:

        http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/science/2013/05/discovered-the-molecule-responsible-for-itchiness/

        A perfect example of the engineering mess: The neural transmitter Nppb is part of the mess of things which regulate blood circulation and pressure (would, after all, make no sense for the system to be “simple”). Turns out, for no bloody good reason at all, there are nerve cells, in the lower spine, which react to it, for no other purpose, other than the function as the “trigger” mechanism for “itching”. Yep, that’s right, if reading the word “itch” made you want to scratch your nose, you can blame it on the bloody stupid fact that dear A. TV’s “aliens” couldn’t figure out how to engineer an itch mechanism, for your skin, without tying it into your ability to pump your blood. A result that is right up there with wiring your car, so that the tires won’t rotate, if your stereo isn’t turned to a specific station. Like nearly every geneticist has said at one point or another, “If this was engineered, the engineer was an idiot.” lol

  11. @ Kagehi

    “..pyramid gibberish..”

    Yes, yes…. but more interestingly, are you able to refute the observations about those sites using actual science (reason and evidence)?

    For example 1000+ ton stones can hardly be lifted even with our largest cranes (which the ancient Egyptians lacked, right? They only had palm trees, twine and copper tools!) and even we lack the technology today which can cut some of those granite blocks. Yet we know were cut ‘somehow’ and by ‘someone’ thousands of years ago…

    So to qualify your ‘gibberish’ claim what you need to do is to explain HOW those stones were cut, moved and set with such precision. (For bonus points explain how they are able to be perfectly aligned and how they were able to encode into the geometry things like precession, the proportions of the earth, the speed of light and so on).

    This is the scientific method. If you make a claim you MUST be able to back it up with evidence and reason.

    Dismissing irrefutable evidence like those huge stone blocks (quite literally ‘hard evidence’) means you are, by definition, no longer participating in a scientific, or rational, or grown up discussion. Instead you’re just retreating into the defence of the ‘true believer’….a defence consisting of ad hominems, evasion, jibes and so on.

    Like I said, those precision cut, moved and set stones weighing thousands of tons are to modern (mainstream) science what fossils are to creationists. You cannot explain, and so your only option is to evade the issue. This is a shame. We could learn a lot more about the universe by studying ancient sites (and the ancient technology they imply) instead of pretending they built by narcissistic Pharaohs using slaves, log rollers and ramps!

    “Heave!” 😉

    I’m afraid hard evidence wins over dogmatic belief, at least in the realm of TRUE science. But if you can provide an evidence-based, super scientific explanation of how those stones were worked all will be forgiven 🙂

    “…. Like nearly every geneticist has said at one point or another, “If this was engineered, the engineer was an idiot.” lol….”

    Precisely the observation made by researchers like Lloyd Pye (except he does not call them idiots). Have you looked into his research, particularly in relation to the ‘Starchild Skull’?

    So far ALL the evidence (including extensive DNA analysis) points strongly in the direction of it being a human/ alien hybrid skull. Seems like it will only be a matter of time (ie more funding) before we have the world’s first 100% publicly tested and publicly proven alien (hybrid) skull.

    Will you be modifying your views to incorporate alien visitation (and potentially alien interference in human ‘evolution’) or will you be sticking to what you currently believe, even after the full DNA analysis is completed and the ‘non human’ status of the skull is confirmed?

    Do you know of any evidence out there suggesting this is something other than a human/ alien hybrid?

    If you can answer without evading, ridiculing, dismissing or jibing – all the better! 🙂

  12. Ugh.. Someone else deal with this bozo. Next he will be claiming Scientology websites are “science”.

    • Not addressing the evidence – noted.
      Not answering any of my questions – noted.
      Not providing evidence to back up your counter claims – noted.
      Use of ad hominem attacks (“bozo”) rather than reasoned arguments – noted.
      Use of underhand diversion tactics (changing the subject to Scientology in order to create the association in the reader’s mind between my reason and evidence and the activities of a well known cult) – noted.

      • Not having any evidence – noted.
        Not being able to address what I did provide, or, for that matter, actually talk to experts on the subject, instead of going to websites dedicated to gibberish – noted.
        Again – no evidence, just assertions, and claims that some tiny percentage of people who are considered total cranks, constitutes a rising opposition to current theory – noted.

        I don’t give a frack if you don’t like me comparing you to a circus performer, instead of wasting my time addressing an endless list of assertions, none of the explanations for you would bother accepting anyway.

        As for diversionary tactics… This whole conversation has been a diversion from the original point of the article, in the first place. On the contrary, when I did bother to attempt to address any of your assertions, I bloody did address them specifically. Its hardly my fault you can’t stay on subject, and have to keep, instead, inserting more and more stuff, to try to claim that juggling 50 colored balls, instead of three, somehow makes your original claims any less absurd. And, no, I don’t think, at all, that Scientology derailed anything. Its simply an even more absurd version of “aliens did it”, which you already claimed.

        I take it back. Bozo was a poor choice, it doesn’t imply, delusional, self centric (i.e., the universe must be how you believe it is, a claim I would never make, merely that it would be obtuse for me to deny everything people have discovered in the last 200 years, because I prefer a world that doesn’t work like any of them say it does) and ignorant. I think the proper word for that is, in fact, “crank” – as this side defines the term.

        In any case, no one is paying me to put up with your widening assertions, and refusal to address what I did provide, instead of just slapping new assertions on, like band aids, and ignoring what I *have* said. As such, I have better things to do. Go pester Dawkins, or PZ Meyers, or someone else who, again, “Actually knows enough to address at least *some* of your points better than I can.” I am sure they could use a good laugh.

        But, that being said.. stone blocks, even that big, are neither impossible to move, nor, in recent studies of them, do they show a) unknown methods to produce them, b) a complete lack of tool marks, c) a total absence of any sort of records, as to how they where move, or carved, or anything else. The assumption people like you always make is that the people of that time where total idiots, and we are not much smarter, yet, time and time again, we find that, while they didn’t have fancy equations, and much of what they did know was lost, they never the less knew **very well** how to use what they had available, to do things that we have a bloody stupid habit of thinking are “impossible”, only because we can’t work out how to use an over-engineered method, and entirely the wrong tools, to do it.

        Oh, and, just to “address” some of your recent claims, things like the “crystal skulls”, which I assume you where referring too, since if it was the “alien mummy”, your claims are just made even more absurd, have tool marks on them, and other characteristics that only those who conned people with them wanted to claim they didn’t. None of the tools needed where “super magical technology, which no common jeweler wouldn’t have had.” Same with silly nonsense with “alien” skeletons, and so on. What all of them have in common is – no one is ***ever*** allowed to test any of them, unless those people are hand picked, and often from the wrong field of study, by the people that own them. Maybe because, every single time any of them have been tested by people who are not already believers, or have real credentials, the results are either complete falsification of the claims, or, at best, “inconclusive” (The mini-alien mummy turns out, for example, to be completely human, just seriously damned small). The exact sort of thing you might expect from someone who knows they can make lots of money selling gullible people millions of copies of a book, or by parading things around and making claims to the gullible, but nothing at all, if they where proven to be complete con artists.Odd how that works….

  13. “..But, that being said.. stone blocks, even that big, are neither impossible to move, nor, in recent studies of them, do they show a) unknown methods to produce them, b) a complete lack of tool marks, c) a total absence of any sort of records, as to how they where move, or carved, or anything else…”

    If your claims are correct you will easily be able to provide a brief example of how they could have been cut, moved and set with such precision, without reliance on 21st (or 20th, or 19th, or 18th etc etc) century technology. Even a hypothetical explanation will do. Imagine we are in a courtroom and you are an expert brought in to explain how such a thing might be possible. If you can’t offer the jury a specific (even if speculative) explanation we must assume you are just bluffing. The floor is yours…

    “..Oh, and, just to “address” some of your recent claims, things like the “crystal skulls”, which I assume you where referring too..”

    By ‘skull’ I meant ‘skull’. You know: skull. (That big bone in your head). I even gave a link to a video called “Starchild Skull for Dummies”. I really don’t know how to make it any more obvious what it was I was referring to. A skull. An actual skull. Not a crystal skull. Crystals do not contain DNA the last time I looked.

    “..Same with silly nonsense with “alien” skeletons, and so on. What all of them have in common is – no one is ***ever*** allowed to test any of them..”

    Are you actually reading MY comments (the ones which exist in reality), or a different version of my comments which only exist in your imagination? Like I said…. extensive DNA analysis has already been conducted on the skull and the results are compelling and indicate it is a human/ ‘non human’ hybrid. The results are way off the scale. When the full DNA is sequenced (and it will be) the results will prove beyond all doubt that the skull is an alien/ human hybrid. If you have any other evidence to the contrary, let’s hear it.

    Here’s that video again LINK To really understand this skull you need to watch one of Lloyd Pye’s full lectures (which are also on youtube).

  14. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080328104302.htm

    Still being studied, but they do bloody well know how the pyramids where built, and it didn’t take modern, or more advanced than modern, tools, or levitation, or anything else that defies reason. This is how science works – it actually tries to figure out how it was done, examines more and more newly found details, to work it out, etc. What it doesn’t do is read a book from 20 years ago, or attend conferences, held by people still babbling about things written 20+ years ago, ignore new evidence, and then assert, “We don’t know, therefor, aliens!”

    Heck, its not even an answer. Maybe, if you could actually show how the aliens did it, or an actual bloody alien. Only, you can’t even do that, so all you have is assertions, and, in the mean time, real archeologists, and scientists, are figuring out the details **in spite** of the people that think aliens had to do it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starchild_skull

    Sorry, I am not, unlike you, aware of every bloody silly hoax out there, so I had no idea what you where talking about. Pye, like most kooks, will keep ignoring actually DNA research, and keep making absurd claims about the “truth”, while being unable to, for example, do something as basic as showing the tests, the data, or the specific genetics that supposedly prove his case, assuming he even has any. See, that is how science works – you have to show your bloody work, not just assert that its true, and everyone else is lying about it. When you don’t have any facts, data, evidence, etc., just assertions, its not science. Show me the numbers, and to how many decimal places. If you don’t have any, but instead just have claims of, “It can’t be so, so my hypothesis is better.”, then its nothing more than mental masturbation on the part of the people making the claims, because, claiming something, or someone, somehow did is, someway, but we don’t know who, how, or even why, isn’t a damned answer, doesn’t give us any useful information, and can/does derail the search for answer that “do” provide us with new knowledge, better explanations, and new discoveries. I haven’t seen UFO experts, or anyone else in the same category of crankery, come up with “anything” at all that expanded our knowledge, or improved our understanding of the world, or explained anything at all. But, I have seen a lot of really bad movies, and fiction come out of it, so.. I suppose its not all completely useless.. lol

    • You still have not answered any of my questions. Instead you provided links to people who happen to agree with your absurd beliefs, and also do not address the evidence.

      This is not scientific. I can claim the moon is made of cheese and then link to an article which agrees with me – so what?

      The article about the pyramids suggests it was built by hundreds of thousands of slaves working with copper tools and ropes. It proposes the granite was cut by men pounding it with rocks!

      How does one cut a granite obelisk weighing more than 1000 tons from bedrock using rocks?! How do you cut the underside? How do you lift it?

      Please answer these questions. You seemed so confident no other technology was used, yet you have not yet offered a single explanation of how these stones were cut, moved or set in place.

      (pounding them with rocks is not an explanation!)

      You appear to be in a la-la land of denial.

      As for the wikipedia article about the Starchild Skull …. It is full of disinfo.

      Here is a line-by-line breakdown of the wiki article – with corrections and clarifications added. I suggest you read it – LINK

  15. You obviously have reading comprehension problems, since the link a) fairly clearly denies the use of “slaves”, that idea was based on the whole Exodus nonsense, which has, since then, been proven to be pure fable, and b) they state that they still have an incomplete picture. This is way better than what you have, which is just an assertion, without a single scrap of evidence at all, that humans couldn’t have done it with the tools we had. So.. Where is your evidence? What is your evidence? Do you even have any, unlike the people actually trying to figure out how it was done, instead of just claiming that aliens did it, somehow, using some unknown technology.

    As for the Starchild thing.. Give me a break. See, the problem is, your side just assumes they are right, without even asking the two critical questions that make science work at all, “Could I be wrong?”, and, “How would I test my ideas, to determine if I was wrong.” On the contrary, your “method” is just to keep scrambling around for things you can’t explain, or describe, or give methods for, or show technologies that where used, or **anything at all**, and state, “We don’t have a clue, so, this must have also been aliens!”

    And, laughably, you are accusing someone who doesn’t make a career out of hunting down every scrap of information you want to see, of not having any facts. What a joke.

    Oh, and to further address another point you where harping on earlier, further studies on human DNA, versus Bonobo have pegged the similarity, outside of primarily developmental genes, which alter growth rates, at more like 99% similar. That doesn’t leave a whole lot to have been “engineered”, but what it does leave would require actual signs of engineering. The problem you have is that the only thing you claim proves this engineering is “fusion of some genes. How does this prove alien cross breeding? Why the hell would aliens even have something identical to our DNA in the first place, never mind the same, identical encoding system, chemical composition, etc….? You do know they are experimenting now with alternative forms, which they have already shown can be transcribed, just like normal DNA, right, so why would they even have ATGC, instead of like HRXP, or some other alternate set of chemicals? And, why would those chemicals all “encode” the same “sentences”, if you will, so exactly that they would be able to breed, never mind engineer into us, their own DNA? This isn’t bloody Star Trek, where half the universe seems to have magically formed nearly the same genetics.

    But, no, the biggest hole in the idea that this is a sign of engineering is the apparent assumption on your part (how common this is with various styles of creationists), that such fusion is always harmful, unless someone does it intentionally, and knows what they are doing (the same canard as, “genetic mutations are not almost always neutral, as in reality, since its a very loose system, which handles minor changes well, but instead, almost always fatal!” Problem is, and it took me a while to find even one article, giving that google is deluged with idiot references to creation sites, and people linking to them (ignorance seems to be bloody popular), humans are not the only species that show this. Everything from some species of deer, to mice, and rats, and who knows what else, have one or more forms of genetic fusion. Though, I am sure you could simply try to simply argue that the “aliens” picked a bunch of random animals to experiment on, before monkeying with apes.. Though, why, if they had the technology to take their own DNA like stuff, and “translate” it into ours, so as to jury rig in some ridiculously small amount of “critical” DNA, to make us into humans, instead of chimps.. they would need to run those experiments in the first place, is beyond me:

    http://amazingdiscoveries.org/C-deception-glossary_fusion_inversion_variation

    BTW, still waiting for evidence that isn’t an “argument from incredulity” from you, about anything at all that you are claiming. Because, that is all you seem to have, an endless mess of people claiming, “I don’t believe the science, and I must have an answer, so, instead of looking for one that fits everything that science has figured out so far, and expands on that knowledge, I am going to just assume aliens did it, and that every single living person studying the subject from the perspective of the existing sciences, are all, for some reason, lying!”

    Oh, and here is a hint – qouting stuff from the only guy that actually thinks it is real, as though it proves it is valid, is no different than a religious creationist trying to argue that something “had to be real” by only quoting priests and Biblical texts. Until/unless you can provide more than one source, all you prove is that you can be taken in by the arguments of one single person, and his followers. Again – real science, requires “reproducibility”, as well as a willingness to ask, “How can I test my idea, to see if I am *wrong*.”, not, “If I am right.”, but, if you are wrong. The intent is to self correct, the intent is to also give other people enough data to correct you, if you are unintentionally so wrong you can’t even see your own mistakes. Pye – doesn’t even have anything you could use to even start to ask those critical questions, never mind test them, or let anyone else attempt the same. Collecting bottle caps, and claiming they are signs of alien visitation, isn’t “science”, and this is, figuratively, what people like him do, collect a bunch of shit they don’t understand, insist everyone else is wrong, then just double down, any time someone comes along and suggests, “Heh, you know, I think I saw one of those things on a bottle once.” You have to be willing to challenge your own assumptions to find an answer, and its quite obvious that neither you, nor Pye, have any interest in doing a damn thing, other than looking for more “unknowns” to stack on the pile of, “evidence” you claim supports your positions. Not one scrap of which provides a testable claim, or even tries to even guess at, “Ok, if evolution/humans/other things on this planet, didn’t do it, then how did *those other things* do it?”

    It goes back to one of my original point – if you think life on earth, or even just humans, where “engineered”, then what they hell is your explanation for how the aliens arose? Because, you need to provide answers, not just claims that everyone else’s answers, which they didn’t spend a few decades working out, but hundreds of years working on, are all somehow, without one scrap of an answer on your part to “HOW”, wrong.

    • Yet more evading on my questions, and of the evidence.

      MONUMENTAL STONE STRUCTURES

      Whether or not the (alleged) builders of the pyramids, and other huge and high precision structures, were ‘slaves’ or ‘happy workers’ is irrelevant to the question of how they were constructed – a question which you keep evading.

      “..they state that they still have an incomplete picture…”

      For which they should win an award for ‘best understatement in the field of scientific research’.

      “..This is way better than what you have, which is just an assertion, without a single scrap of evidence at all, that humans couldn’t have done it with the tools we had..”

      The ENTIRE BODY OF KNOWLEDGE GAINED THUS FAR BY HUMAN CIVILISATION is evidence that humans could not have achieved those structures using primitive tools. All science, engineering, stone masonry etc agrees that such feats are impossible. But this doesn’t fit ‘the establishment paradigm’ (the ‘church of progress’) and so, as far as these structures are concerned, all evidence and reason are suspended.

      If NASA discovered a human settlement on Mars which was found to be 4000 years old we would not need to find a relic of a fancy high tech spaceship to rule out the idea of a primitive spaceship made of rocks, wood and string (and made with copper tools). We ALREADY KNOW such primitive technology would NOT be sufficient to get you to Mars, or sustain you when you got there. A human settlement on mars would be IN ITSELF evidence of high technology – even if no physical evidence (ie relics) of that technology could be found.

      The existence of numerous sophisticated monumental stone structures around the world in ancient times is no less of an enigma than a 4000 year old human settlement on mars. We cannot fly manned missions to mars today with our current level of technology. And we also cannot cut, lift, move or set some of those stone blocks and monoliths with our current level of technology either.

      And we certainly could NOT have accomplished either feat thousands of years ago with copper tools, twine, bits of wood etc.

      And so the onus is not on me to prove this conclusion because ALL THE EVIDENCE IS WITH ME. The onus is on YOU to provide new evidence which proves your outlandish theory that primitive tools and manpower alone could somehow achieve the impossible. So far you have provided no EVIDENCE and no coherent EXPLANATION (not even a speculative one).

      The existence of my HYPOTHETICAL human settlement on mars does NOT prove they jumped there – that would be preposterous. Nor does it prove they flew their in a rocket made out of wood and string – that is just as preposterous.

      The existence of REAL LIFE monumental, high precision stone structures all over our planet does NOT prove they were made by natural erosion – that would be preposterous. Nor does it prove they were made by men using rocks, copper tools and string – that is just as preposterous.

      You seem very confident no high technology was used. To be taken seriously you have to ‘put your money where your mouth is’ and propose HOW those stone blocks could have been cut, lifted and set in place.

      For example, in this video please describe the tools, the process, the method etc. Of particular interest is the huge unfinished (because it was cracked?) stone monolith at 14 minutes with the narrow channels on either side. How would your theory propose cutting the underside and then lifting it out? (please don’t say by hitting it with rocks!)

      (you might want to turn down the music) LINK

      STARCHILD SKULL

      “…As for the Starchild thing.. Give me a break….”

      Science does not ‘give people a break’.

      “….See, the problem is, your side just assumes they are right, without even asking the two critical questions that make science work at all, “Could I be wrong?”, and, “How would I test my ideas, to determine if I was wrong.” …”

      Not at all. I never claimed I was ‘right’. That would make it a matter of belief (faith) and not science (evidence/ reality). I have simply pointed out that all of the EVIDENCE gathered so far points to the skull being some kind of human/ alien hybrid. That’s not a matter of belief, that’s a matter of fact (evidence/ science).

      This evidence (such as analysis of its structure, composition and extensive DNA analysis) is absolutely scientific, and it is all consistent and compelling. This kind of evidence is perfectly valid in any other forensic investigation or scientific research – why are you so keen to dismiss it in this case?

      The current DNA results indicate that when the entire DNA is sequenced, the skull will be proven to be – beyond doubt – that of a human mother and an alien father. I already asked IF this does turns out to be the case whether you would finally admit you were wrong about the skull. You never answered…

      “… taken in by the arguments of one single person, and his followers….”

      Evidence (such as DNA analysis) is not really an ‘argument’, it’s just the evidence. People who acknowledge hard evidence for what it is (no more/ no less) are not ‘followers’ (just followers of the evidence, I guess – is that a bad thing?)

      “…Again – real science, requires “reproducibility”…”

      Of course. And I’m sure when the full DNA is sequenced and it proves the skull is an alien/ human hybrid people will demand it be sequenced AGAIN! …… And there’s nothing wrong with that.

      But after it’s been sequenced 100 times with the same result every time, if you’re still shouting “Do it AGAIN!” you might want to ask if you’re being scientific …. or just dogmatic (which is unscientific).

      “…You have to be willing to challenge your own assumptions ..”

      Quite.

      “… and its quite obvious that neither you, nor Pye, have any interest in doing a damn thing, other than looking for more “unknowns” to stack on the pile of, “evidence” you claim supports your positions…”

      Why do you put “evidence’ in quotations? Do you not consider basic anatomical, forensic and DNA analysis to be valid evidence? If so, do you refute animal classifications schemes based on these techniques? Or criminal forensic investigations? Are you *consistent* in your condemnation of these scientific research techniques?

      Nobody is ‘claiming’ the DNA (et al) evidence supports any position. The DNA evidence supports the position it supports all by itself! What else is evidence supposed to do?

      If you ring up the police and report your car is not where you last parked it are you ‘claiming’ the evidence supports the position that it has been stolen? … Or are you just reporting the evidence, and what this evidence points towards (that ‘somebody’ has removed it without your knowledge or consent)?

      So far ALL the evidence suggests the skull is a human/ alien hybrid. If you want to offer some contradictory evidence then go ahead. So far you have offered no contradictory evidence whatsoever.

      “..It goes back to one of my original point – if you think life on earth, or even just humans, where “engineered”, then what they hell is your explanation for how the aliens arose? ….”

      I don’t ‘think’ (ie believe) humans were engineered. The evidence just indicates that they were, that’s all. There was not enough time for us to have evolved from so called ‘pre humans’. And humans are fundamentally different in just about every conceivable way. If new evidence emerges which points in another direction (such as the 30 or so ‘missing links’ which have yet to be found) then so be it! Until then I prefer to go where the current evidence points.

      It makes no difference to the evidence whether the ‘aliens’ evolved naturally or were genetically engineered themselves. That’s not an argument.

      Suppose we did evolve WITHOUT any genetic interference. Suppose in 50 years we genetically engineered chimpanzees using human DNA so they are more like humans, so they can be used as intelligent workers down mines who can follow basic instructions.

      One of the chimp/ human hybrids says “Do you think we were genetically engineered by humans? We don’t seem to have evolved naturally from chimps… there just isn’t enough time for this to have occurred and we’re far too different from them”

      The other chimp says “That can’t be true – regardless of any evidence – because if WE were genetically engineered what the hell is your explanation for how humans arose?”

      Do you see how it’s a flawed argument?

      “…without one scrap of an answer on your part to “HOW”, wrong….”

      You seriously need to study the trivium (which has been systematically eradicated from the education system).

      These days we are trained to always put the HOW before the WHAT. This is incorrect. This is dumbing down. Just look at all the conspiracy theories out there. It’s madness. This is because we’ve all been trained to put the HOW (and the WHO, and the WHY) before the WHAT.

      The correct order is to put the WHAT before everything.

      Study the trivium. Stick to the evidence.

      • I think humans were “introduced” in some manner. My rationale for that is simply my own eyes. “We” are unbalanced in terms of mother nature – indeed “we” have unbalanced mother nature in many, many ways. We have trashed the planet, yet few notice. Our collective aspirations appear to be DNA modification of species for our “benefit” (including no doubt our own in the forseeable future), colonisation of outer space, and building bigger and better weaponry.

        Why would that be, I wonder.

        Could we have gone “full circle”.

        Re ancient structures, my understanding from various sources is that humankind are incapable of reproducing these, even with our current technology. That should speak volumes, without writing volumes.

        cheers

        ps Kagehi , when you wrote this : “Fossils don’t tend to survive”, I switched off. Can you elaborate, as I take it the “missing link” ones never survived, yet others did ?

      • Sigh. More assertions, claims that stone structures are impossible, claims that every biologist on the planet is either lying, or stupid, or wrong, but Mr. Pye and his like have evidence, which amounts to, “We don’t think humans look enough like their closest living relative to not me engineered.”, ad nauseum. I still don’t see “evidence”, like, I don’t know, how about you show the actual engineered genes! Those should be completely obvious, since they wouldn’t show the same sort of sloppy, random selection bias that all the others do. And, I repeat, you are asking the wrong damn person for evidence, I am not a bloody geneticist, or an engineer, so I couldn’t answer most of your questions well enough anyway. Try talking to people that actually know where to find the evidence. Hell, try just looking at a website that doesn’t come up in the google top 20, which is filled with what ever the latest batch of noise makers are searching on (its a real shitty source, in my experience, for finding actual information, on.. anything at all, including my area of expertise – computers, since it has no damn filters, at all, and classes “most searched”, as “most useful”.

        BTW, the use of “” is sometimes, in certain context, like when used with one word, called a “scare quote”, it is intended to emphasize the word, usually, in a context of disagreement, with the intent to show contempt at the other persons misuse of the word, or phrase. I know its confusing, but.. sadly I don’t like shouting (i.e. capitalizing words are random), I don’t have Comic Sans as an option, not can I do what else certain types of people like to do, when unhinged, and color every other word differently. Feel free to find a forum/blog some place that lets you do this though, I get the sense from your last post, its exactly your style…

        Now.. I need to figure out where the “unsubscribe” for this is, so I can ignore you.

  16. @Kagehi

    “..claims that stone structures are impossible, ..”

    It’s not a claim. There is simply NO EVIDENCE that those structures can be built by primitive methods (copper tools, palm trees, twine, humans etc). You have failed to provide any evidence yourself. No one ever has. No one can. Everything we know about the the laws of physics and the nature of materials tells us that those structures could NOT possibly have been built using primitive methods, just as we can’t possibly fly to Mars in a spaceship made of wood and string. It really is that preposterous.

    Your confusion on this issue stems from embracing a logical fallacy: appeal to authority. For generations mainstream, establishment science has taught us all (in schools, media etc) that these structures were built by humans using primitive technology. You (and millions of other people) have confused the ‘voice of authority’ with evidence.

    This mass acceptance of the word of authority has, in turn, created a CONSENSUS-BASED (not evidence-based) BELIEF SYSTEM (world view).

    Q. Why do millions of religious people believe a god created the world in 7 days?

    A. Because when they were young (and before they had fully developed critical skills) trusted authority figures (parents, school teachers, priests etc) told them it was true, and this created a self reinforcing consensus belief system.

    Q. Why do millions of people believe our ancestors built these massive stone structures using primitive tools and methods?

    A. Because when they were young (and before they had fully developed critical skills) trusted authority figures (parents, school teachers, historians etc) told them it was true, and this created a self reinforcing consensus belief system.

    There is no actual evidence for either belief.

    Therefore the onus is NOT on me to provide any additional evidence to disprove the ‘7 day creation myth’, or the ‘pyramids were built with coper tools and string’ myth. It up to the ‘true believers’ in these myths to provide the extraordinary evidence required to explain these extraordinary claims.

    “…claims that every biologist on the planet is either lying, or stupid, or wrong..”

    I never claimed they were all lying (in the sense of some giant conspiracy). Many are ignorant, misinformed and narrow in their thinking (thanks again to the education system).

    Remember, it’s perfectly possible to work for an employer while NOT sharing that employer’s world view, or intentions. Scientists are no different. There are thousands of scientists out there who (if truth be told) do NOT agree with the mainstream, establishment world view re: evolution, human origins, ancient history, alien intervention etc but they keep quiet for fear of ostracism, losing funding, not getting that promotion etc.

    It’s the same reason why employees at MacDonalds rarely speak negatively about the establishment – at least not in public. Instead they say “Enjoy your meal and have a nice day!”

    “…I am not a bloody geneticist, or an engineer,…”

    Then you admit you are not qualified to judge the evidence….. in which case why do you dismiss the hard evidence I presented? Oh yes, ‘appeal to authority’ – we already covered that.

    I understand why you were putting “evidence” in quotations – it was obviously to signify your doubt as to its validity. I was asking WHY you doubt the validity of this evidence, such as the DNA evidence, the physical evidence, the anatomical evidence etc.

    If this was a forensic investigation into a crime would you doubt the validity of this kind of evidence? Would you stand up in a courtroom and declare “DNA evidence, physical evidence, anatomical evidence do not count as real evidence”.

    If not then you DO in fact regard DNA, physical and anatomical evidence as valid evidence…. in which case you have to agree with what this evidence (not theory) indicates. That is all ‘followers’ of Lloyd Pye are doing: acknowledging what the evidence indicates thus far.

    • I’m only going to reply to your comments on stone structures. I would encourage you to do some research into the methods that the ancient Romans used to cut marble and granite from the cliffs. If I remember correctly it involved water from the aqueducts and a wooden wedge in the already existing fissures. If anything more precise was needed, they used metal chisels and repeated pounding via slave labor. Now, it’s common knowledge that the ancient Egyptians had advanced irrigation technology (and slaves) so it is not unlikely that similar methods were used there. As for the rest of your arguements…I’ll be blunt. You’re a fecking idiot.

      • 1500+ ton granite blocks which our most powerful cranes today can barely lift were cut out of bedrock in a manner which is beyond our best diamond cutting technology……. and you suggest this was done by water, wooden wedges and slaves.

        Then you call me an idiot for using verifiable DNA evidence in an argument…. whereas you offer no evidence whatsoever.

        You are an example of what the current mainstream education system produces: Total ignorance, no evidence or reason and total confidence in a bunch of vague and unfounded second-hand beliefs.

        This is why science today is becoming just another religious faith.

      • 1500+ tons? Are you fucking kidding me? Man get your facts straight. The largest piece of granite in the great pyramid of giza is 80 tonnes. Not 8000, not 800, 80. And THAT isn’t even what the exterior (which you seem to be referring to most of the time) is made out of. The exterior blocks are made of limestone. The granite is mostly underground in the Kings Chamber. However I do see where you could be getting your numbers confused. The entirety of the great pyramid of giza consists of a TOTAL of 5.5 million tonnes of limestone, 8,000 tonnes of granite, and 500,000 tonnes of mortar. Using the proper numbers (instead of taking the proper numbers and pressing the plus key until you find one sufficiently unbelievable for yourself), the pyramids could have EASILY (ok…maybe not easily, but with work) been built using the method I described. In fact, that is the current hypothesis as to how they WERE constructed. As to your “verifiable DNA evidence” I challenge you to show me any reputable source as to where they have been “verified.” From what I know of genetics, which is admittedly little (and that is saying something), every piece of “evidence” you’ve presented is complete bunk. The only thing that it is “evidence” of is confirmation bias and the existence of suspension of disbelief. Actually. Now that I think of it, where have you presented any evidence? You’re always saying “there are studies” and “this has happened” without citing any sources. So please, oh great swami of bullshit, tell us again how we rely on secondhand beliefs with no evidence or reason. Meanwhile I’ll be sitting here waiting for you to show us your “first hand” evidence and the logic I’m oh so SURE will accompany it. Oh, and so you know, just because your beliefs are “first hand” doesn’t make you right. It makes you unverified. Clinging to unverified “facts” makes you an idiot. That is why the scientific method exists. Hypothesis, experiment, conclusion. Repeat until someone proves you wrong. Not Hypothesis, experiment, decide the experiment didn’t go right because it didn’t match your hypothesis so you still must be right. Also not Hypothesis, fuck the experiment, conclusion.

      • Apparently, my “kill this notification” setting didn’t work, but.. bloody hell, we don’t use “cranes” to move a space shuttle, as just one example, but, its not the only one. We also don’t use them to move “most” things that are bloody huge, nor do we use them when they are unavailable. We use ramps, lubricants, rollers, like logs, and other basic principles of physics, which don’t involve raising the bloody things straight up into the air. They where not “cut”, they where “cracked loose”, in most cases. Its already been pointed out that Romans used special saws, and the like, and, gosh… it almost seems to me that the Roman empire, and Greek, before that, existed “in the same time frame”, so its hardly impossible for two bronze age civilizations to have used similar tools. Beyond that, they have found cases of grooves in large stones, in many cases, at least in Egypt, which show the method of “leveling”, by employing water, pored into those slots, to gauge if the surface being worked on came out flat. Most of the “monolithic” structures, when they are not odd structures that only look man made, and, yep, nature sometimes does that, are no where near “precise”, so, the only requirement is getting them from point A to point B, then standing them up, none of which is bloody rocket science, except to the people that think aliens had to use some sort of laws of physics we don’t now (and which more physicists, unless they are UFO nuts as well, would argue isn’t out there to be found in the first place).

        But, yeah, I am with the other guy, you are a bloody twit. Your arguments are right up their with some people that used to insist that ancient Japanese swords had to be manufactured with some sort of magical, nearly alien, technique, when it turned out that it was simply the use of isotope laden metals (which we since figured out to use in our own steel), and a bloody long time spent using dozens of polishing compounds, and expert polishers, very carefully, with their fingers, feeling out every flaw in the edge, then picking the precise grade of polish to use, to polish out the flaw.

  17. @schwarherz

    “..1500+ tons? Are you fucking kidding me? ..”

    If you read my previous comments (and check the links) you’ll see I was referring to ALL the monumental stone structures around the world. Some of the stone blocks do indeed weigh 1500+ tons.

    As I pointed out you’ve not offered any evidence as to how they were cut, lifted or set with such precision. You ignore the fact that we either can’t – or can barely – achieve these feats even with modern 21st century technology. To suggest water, wooden wedges and slaves can match (or in some cases outperform) our largest cranes and diamond cutting tools is beyond ridiculous. The analogy I used was flying to Mars with a spaceship made of wood and string.

    This subject – and the hard evidence associated with it – shatters the establishment consensus world view of linear technological progress. This is deeply unsettling and upsetting to a lot of people who were brought up to believe all ancient cultures were primitive and 21st century technology (and society) has never been matched or bettered.

    But we already know, for instance, that Sumerian culture appeared ‘out of nowhere’. We also know that Egyptian culture was at its peak at the start, after which it started to degrade….. taking us al the way into the Dark Ages, from which we only recently emerged. This flies in the face of the linear progress world view – and it also suggests high civilisation(s) stretching way back into pre history. We also have underwater settlements all over the world which were not above sea level until 10,000 years ago before the ice age came to an end and rose sea level by about 70m (I forget exact figure). Again this is hard evidence. Perhaps the 200 or so flood myths (big flood, civilisation wiped out, having to start again from scratch) are not myths at all, but recorded history of this well established rise in sea level.

    We also have ancient maps which accurately show the continents as they would have appeared with a significantly lower sea level, as well as accurately depicting the land mass which sits *underneath* the Antarctic ice.

    On and on the evidence (not theory) goes. And yet none of this is taught in schools, instead a ‘Disney’ version of history is taught which is pure nonsense.

    If you are taught that Time = Progress then the implications are that all the world’s problems (economic, social, political, environmental, spiritual, technological) will be improved ‘as if by magic’ simply by the passing of time. But once you realise that high civilisations with advanced technologies have come and gone the implication is that it’s possible for humanity to lose its way, take a wrong turn, self destruct, or be almost wiped out be a natural catastrophe etc. Given the current state of the world this should make us deeply concerned and even fearful (in the most positive sense). Maybe human civilisation is not on ‘railroad tracks’ of eternal progress, but instead we are on a bus and the wrong people have gotten behind the steering wheel. Maybe they could drive us all off a cliff if we don’t watch out.

    Perhaps this is the reason for your (and other people’s) reflex defence of the establishment dogma. It puts your mind at ease. All the world’s solutions are just around the corner because Time = Progress.

    I mean, come on be honest….. if the subject wasn’t so ‘paradigm shattering’ would you REALLY be trying to convince me (and perhaps yourself?) that puny human beings could cut, lift and set 1500+ granite blocks with little more than wooden wedges, ropes and water?

    Instead of attacking me, why don’t you offer some EVIDENCE as to how it could have been done? …. or even intelligent speculation would be a start.

    As for the Starchild Skull, DNA evidence is real evidence and is absolutely verifiable – over and over again if needs be. A real skull is also hard physical evidence which can be examined by anybody. This is not an alien (hybrid) ‘theory’, this is a genuine artefact in the real world.

    Digging up real bones and real fossilised bones and then studying them is how we’ve gained most of our knowledge of the origin of humans, animals and plants. This skull is no different. Whatever it tells us is the truth because the skull is real. To claim this skull somehow doesn’t count as real evidence is no different to creationists claiming fossils don’t count as real evidence either.

    One of the characteristics of faith-based / consensus-based belief systems is that the people who believe in them are not swayed by evidence – in fact they will blatantly DENY or IGNORE hard evidence if it threatens their belief system.

    Another characteristic is that they will insist they are in the right, and that their position (which is little more than a story they were told when they were children) is somehow the default position and therefore they don’t need to produce any evidence to back up their world view.

    Instead of evidence they just make ad hominem attacks and fallacious appeals to ‘authority’. A few centuries ago they used to just kill people who dared question the consensus world view.

    Scientific and social progress has always been made AGAINST the prevailing establishment consensus based world view.

  18. @Kagehi

    “..we don’t use “cranes” to move a space shuttle, as just one example, but, its not the only one. We also don’t use them to move “most” things that are bloody huge, nor do we use them when they are unavailable. We use ramps, lubricants, rollers, like logs, and other basic principles of physics, which don’t involve raising the bloody things straight up into the air…”

    A massive crane was used inside the Vehicle Assembly Building (I think that’s what it was called) to lift the shuttle from horizontal to vertical, add the tank and boosters and load it onto the moving launch platform.

    How on earth did you imagine they lifted the shuttle, if not by crane?!!!

    The mobile launch pad was a massive machine in its own right, made of steel and powered by huge engines. Comparing it to “ramps, lubricants, rollers, like logs” is absolutely crackers.

    A quick search reveals the Space Shuttle weighed about 80 tons (empty). The largest stone block cut and moved in ancient times weighed well over 1000 tons.

    Once again you have provided ZERO evidence as to how these massive stone blocks were cut, lifted, transported and set with razor blade precision.

    Now you’re suggesting the shuttle was moved without cranes and on ramps and lubricated logs. I’m afraid you’re just digging yourself into a deeper hole and reinforcing everything I said in my last comment about how indoctrinated people defend their belief systems ‘to the death’ in spite of all the evidence which exposes those belief systems as absurd.

    • I’m going to sound like a broken record, but, you keep demanding evidence. We keep providing it. You keep ignoring it and demanding evidence again, all the while spouting your crazy bullshit and providing no evidence of your own. We want links, citations, websites and books where we can verify things. However, you seem unwilling, if not unable to provide them. Give us your evidence, then we can have a proper debate instead of slinging insults like teenagers.

    • Apparently, he can’t do analogy, nuance, or, for that matter, logic, either. The point with the shuttle, and the rest, is that there are multiple ways to move very large objects. You use the right one, in the right situation, and if you don’t have the right one, or don’t have a way to build the right one, you use other methods. One of your biggest problems is a complete lack of imagination. You can’t imagine Egyptians being able to find a way to move things that big, so, they couldn’t have. And the same for all the rest. But, and this is the amazingly stupid part… you *can* imagine something, for which you have no evidence, proof, or sound reason, doing it via some indescribably method.

      But, this is basic faith 101. Its easier to suspend disbelief, if the whole damn thing is an unknown, than to suspend only “some” disbelief, in an attempt to understand what might actually be possible, if you could just accept that it actually is possible, at all, in the first place.

      • @ Kagehi and schwarherz

        “..you keep demanding evidence. We keep providing it…”

        No evidence has been provided by either of you in relation to the starchild skull. And no evidence which explains how the stone monuments were constructed has been provided either. Only name calling and lots of nonsense about logs, slaves, space shuttles, wooden wedges etc has been provided.

        “..spouting your crazy bullshit and providing no evidence of your own… We want links, citations, websites and books where we can verify things. However, you seem unwilling, if not unable to provide them… ”

        Everything I have brought up is easily verifiable with a quick google search. I also provided several links to help you verify without even having to type anything into google. Let’s quickly dismiss this ‘crazy bullshit’ claim….

        Stone structures all over the planet with some blocks of 1500 tons or more is WELL DOCUMENTED (some links to videos showing them already provided)

        The existence of the 900 year old Starchild skull and extensive (and ongoing) DNA analysis so far indicating it is of alien/ human parents is WELL DOCUMENTED (links already provided, or just go to lloydpye.com)

        The Piri Reis map (and others), the presence of (currently) below sea level settlements, the rapid rises in sea level during the end of the ice age, the shape of the world’s coastlines before/ after each sea level rise, the 200 ‘great flood’ myths from cultures all over the planet are all WELL DOCUMENTED – a good summary of this info is presented hereLINK

        “..The point with the shuttle, and the rest, is that there are multiple ways to move very large objects…”

        This is a meaningless statement when presented as an argument. If I was defending a man accused of shooting someone I could argue that “There are numerous ways to kill a man” – so what? It is not an argument for anything specific. You need to be more a lot more specific to qualify as an argument for/against something.

        If you want to explain SPECIFICALLY HOW the 80 ton shuttle could be lifted and transported using logs and string (or whatever) then by all means do that.

        If you want to explain precisely SPECIFICALLY HOW stone blocks weighing up to 1500 tons could be cut, lifted, transported and set in place with razor blade precision using logs and string (or whatever) then by all means do that.

        But just vaguely stating that ‘Hey man, anything is possible, just open your mind’ is NOT an explanation, or a bone fide argument.

        If it helps, try imagining we are in a courtroom and imagine your task is to convince the jury HOW you could conceivably move the 80 ton shuttle (or a 1000 ton stone block) using logs, ropes, water – or whatever it is you want. In a courtroom you would not be able to just say – “Hey, anything is possible use your imagination”.

        “..One of your biggest problems is a complete lack of imagination. You can’t imagine Egyptians being able to find a way to move things that big, so, they couldn’t have…”

        This is the exact same argument made by creationists. You have confused imagination with blind faith. Using your imagination to solve complex puzzles in a rational way is NOT the same as just ‘imagining impossible things happening’.

        To illustrate the difference….. I can use my imagination to figure out various methods by which a man could be in London in the morning and New York by the evening.

        I can imagine him booking a flight, getting on the 747 and being transported across the Atlantic at 400mph during the middle of the day.

        I can also imagine him buying some water skies, and two battery powered hand held fans and propelling himself across the Atlantic using the sun to navigate.

        BOTH scenarios are products of my imagination. But only ONE of them is consistent with logic, reason, evidence, rationality, common sense and human experience. Only one is actually possible in the real world.

        I can imagine a god creating the world in 7 days. It doesn’t mean it actually happened or is even possible. I can imagine primitive humans building a wall made with blocks of granite weighing a thousands tons using logs and rope. It doesn’t mean it actually happened or is even possible.

        “…But, and this is the amazingly stupid part… you *can* imagine something, for which you have no evidence, proof, or sound reason, doing it via some indescribably method….”

        But the evidence is that these stone structures exist and that they consist of stone blocks weighing hundreds, and in some cases thousands, of tons. If that does not count as evidence then I don’t know what else would!

        Just because we don’t know what exact technology they DID use to build these structures doesn’t mean you can just make up absurd fantasies about logs and wedges.

        Suppose in my analogy we discovered that all trans-Atlantic flights were in fact grounded on the day is question. Would that make the imagined scenario of water skis and mini fans any more plausible? OF COURSE NOT! ….. This is where your ‘logic’ falls apart.

        You assume the explanation of how these structures were built must come from a limited selection of possibilities, as if it were a multiple choice test in a school exam. It is not.

        This is why you need to forget about your dumbing down in schools and put the WHAT before the WHO, WHY and HOW.

        1. The existence of these stone strictures is hard evidence of the existence of a technology capable of building those structures being present at the time of their construction. This is just basic logic.
        2. That technology (whatever it might be) existed regardless of whether or not we understand what it was. The existence of those structures proves that technology existed.
        3. Primitive tools such as logs, wedges, ropes etc are not capable of building those structures. They never have been and they never will be. This fact remains true even if we’re not sure exactly how these structures were built.
        4. All accumulated human experience and resultant knowledge proves the previous statement (3) to be true. To claim the statement in (3) is false means you are going against ALL human knowledge gained thus far (physics, mechanics, nature of materials etc) … to argue against all accumulated human knowledge is perfectly fine, but…
        5. If you want to argue that (contrary to all current knowledge of physics, mechanics etc) logs, wedges, ropes etc CAN be used to built those structures you really need to provide some kind of reasoned and preferably evidence-based argument. Just saying ‘anything is possible, use your imagination’ is NOT a valid argument. The argument from authority / consensus is also NOT a valid argument. Having blind faith is also NOT a valid argument. Name calling (ad hominem) is NOT a valid argument.

      • Since you were so kind to be all specific (yet still not provide reputable sources) I did as you suggested and asked google. So, one by one, here are the debunkings of your theories.

        Stone Structures with stones of 1,500 tonnes: Seems to be mostly Monoliths which, by definition, are usually ONLY this one stone and oh, hey, there’s a picture of people moving one and another picture of an unfinished one. And, before you say it, we don’t know that the bottom of the obelisk is cut. For all we know, they got three sides done and found some flaw that made them stop. For all we know, the next step (cutting the bottom) could have involved clearing away the rocks on either side.

        900 year old “StarChild skull”: I’m sorry to have to be the one to tell you (ok, no I’m not), but it’s been proven to be completely human. “The Starchild skull is an abnormal human skull allegedly found in Mexico that is claimed to be the product of extraterrestrial-human breeding or genetic manipulation. Tests conducted utilizing mtDNA recovered from the skull have established it as human. Experts believe it to be the skull of a child who died as a result of known genetic or congenital abnormalities, such as congenital hydrocephalus.” Here’s a pic of the skull and a pic of someone with Congenital Hydrocephalus.

        The Piri Reis Map: “The Piri Reis map is a pre-modern world map compiled in 1513 from military intelligence by the Ottoman admiral and cartographer Piri Reis. The approximately one-third of the map that survives shows the western coasts of Europe and North Africa and the coast of Brazil with reasonable accuracy. Various Atlantic islands including the Azores and Canary Islands are depicted, as is the mythical island of Antillia and possibly Japan. The historical importance of the map lies in its demonstration of the extent of exploration of the New World by approximately 1510, perhaps before others. It used 10 Arabian sources, 4 Indian maps sourced from Portuguese and one map of Columbus.” Specifically, on the “depiction” of “antarctica” on the map: “Amateur historian Gavin Menzies claims in his book 1421: The Year China Discovered America that the southern landmass is indeed the Antarctic coastline and was based on earlier Chinese maps. According to Menzies, Admiral Hong Bao charted the coast over 70 years before Columbus as part of a larger expedition under the famous Chinese explorer and admiral Zheng He to bring the world under China’s tribute system. Gregory McIntosh and other cartographers and historians who have examined the map in detail believe the resemblance of the coastline to the actual coast of Antarctica to be tenuous. For centuries before the actual discovery of Antarctica, cartographers had been depicting a massive southern landmass on global maps based on the theoretical assumption by some that one must exist, if only to balance the landmass of the North. It was widely believed that South America and, once its northern coastline was discovered, Australia, must be joined to this land mass, which was thought to be very much bigger than the real Antarctica. This theoretical southern continent, the Great Southern Land or Terra Australis Incognita (literally Unknown Southern Land), in various configurations, was usually shown on maps until the 18th century. An alternate view is that the “Antarctic” coast is simply the eastern coastline of South America skewed to align east-west due to the inaccurate measurement of longitude or to fit it on the page.”

        Movement of large stones, with explanation: “Firstly, a description of the act of raising a large stone, which is a comparatively easy task. In the picture below, a crib of logs is progressively inserted under the stone as it is raised by levers on either side. When the levers have reached a height that causes difficulty for the operators, provide the operators with a platform on which to work that rises as the stone rises. This method has been tried and tested by archaeologists with success. Having decided upon which stone to work with, it next fell upon the prehistoric masons to move the stone from the quarry to its final resting place. While we know already that stones as heavy as 1000 tons were being moved in prehistory, these are the more exceptional cases. There are however, numerous cases of stones exceeding 100 tones from all around the ancient world and there are several descriptions and images to show us how such stones were moved.” If you want to read the rest it’s here.

        Anything else you’d like me to prove for you?

  19. Wonder if he can read:

    http://www.amazon.com/Building-Great-Pyramid-Kevin-Jackson/dp/1552977218

    Problem with “history” is you have to piece it together. It doesn’t just land, nicely, in your lap, with ready explanations, names and places. It can take a bloody long time to figure shit out. Heck, until only like 5-6 years ago they didn’t even have a damn clue that the odd knotting done by Mayan’s on their clothing was a for of writing, where the number of knotts, and spacing, denoted important information, but.. we have had hundreds of years of people seeing space men, aliens, flying dragons, great floods, and numerous idiotic “ends of the world” from a few nuts, staring at a tiny fraction of the evidence.

    Its just so much easier to make shit up, whole cloth, and then pontificate about it, especially if you can sell some books, than actually waste most of your time trying to understand it, like real historians, scientists, and archeologists, most of whom *NEVER* see much money, if any, out of their efforts.

    I have said, or perhaps lamented would be a better word, that the reason I have a shitty job, and no money had less to do with a lack of ability, as an unwillingness to either kiss people’s asses, and thus abuse myself, or con people, and thus abuse the truth.

  20. @schwarherz

    Yes. That was a wonderful example of internet ‘debunking’. It adequately performed the main purpose of debunking, which is to deter people who have NOT yet researched the subjects from bothering to do so. And instead, herd them back into the establishment world view AKA the ‘church of progress’.

    With luck they might even start repeating your debunking to others and help to stop THEM from researching too. Pretty soon you have a million people how have never properly researched the evidence all ABSOLUTELY SURE they know the truth. In this way your kind of debunking acts like a virus, spreading nonsense and holding back human progress. A quick look at history shows that progress in everything from science to morality has been slowed to almost a standstill thanks to people like yourself spreading guff.

    You absolutely, totally and quite spectacularly blew any shred of credibility out of the water when you gave the stock debunking spiel about the Starchild Skull being (1) genetically human (2) genetically deformed, and (3) likely hydrocephalic (complete with comparison pic!)

    The message is clear: don’t bother looking at the evidence. And for most people your confident claim (with pic!) would be enough to stop them from doing so. All you really need to do to defend your position is to block the evidence, derail intelligent discussion of this evidence and quickly claim victory.

    However, if one WERE to study the actual evidence your single paragraph of debunking nonsense would be expose YOU, not the skull, as either an imbecile or a disinfo troll.

    The paternal DNA is as far removed from human as it gets. Every characteristic of hydrocephalus is not only absent from the skull but contrary to what that condition actually produces.

    The bone of the skull itself is like nothing every seen before in any animal. It’s more like tooth enamel than bone, and it has strange fibres running through it like steel set into reinforced concrete, which allows the bone to be much thinner. It’s much lighter and stronger than a human skull, the neck is completely re-designed and situated in the middle , not set back like a human neck. A sloppy human brain in that skull would just slide out into the neck, so that suggests its brain is of a different texture than ours. The eye sockets are about 1/4 of the depth of our eye sockets and completely redesigned. Normal human eyeballs would just fall out of it. It has no sinuses. It has no brow ridge. In fact everything that could be different about it IS different. You address NONE of this evidence, let alone offer an explanation for any of it, let alone ‘debunk’ anything.

    And it is (contrary to its name) not a child but an adult, which goes against the notion of some massive collection of genetic mutations.

    ALL of the evidence tells us that this is a complete re-design, not mutations. Mutations tend to cripple a person, or kill them whereas the starchild skull is for all intents and purposes a different species – and a perfectly functional one. It is not crippled, in many ways it is superior to humans (stronger skull, much bigger brain etc).

    You might as well claim a cat skeleton is in fact a human dwarf with rare genetic mutations resulting in fur, deformed ears, a tail, retractable claws and whiskers.

    All of your imbecilic ‘debunking’ claims are addressed in the starchild for dummies video I already linked (twice) in my original comments. But to get any kind of sense of the overwhelming evidence you need to watch at least one of Lloyd Pye’s two hour presentations (search youtube).

    To even CLAIM to have countered this huge body of evidence in a single paragraph proves you are either (1) deliberately trying to steer other people away from researching the actual evidence in order to protect the existing paradigm (disinfo) or else you are (2) completely incapable of handling basic reason and evidence, and that you’re just repeating hearsay which read on a youtube comment once (misinfo).

    Either way your single paragraph debunking exposes you as a fraud, or a victim of fraud.

    By all means challenge the evidence and promote whatever theory you want, but to challenge evidence you actually need to ADDRESS the evidence and say something (preferably intelligent) about it. Your comment addressed NONE of the evidence (a summary of which takes about 2 hours to go through). Instead you rattled off the name of a genetic condition which has NO RESEMBLANCE to the skull whatsoever and does not account for any of the skull’s features.

    Take one piece of evidence … such as the FOXP2 gene (scroll about halfway down the page). Quote…

    ‘…The key point to understand is that while a tiny amount of survivable mutations are possible in FOXP2, every one that occurs presents debilitating or life-threatening consequences, so to this point in time none have been passed on to the general population of humans. Therefore, in the vast, vast majority of humans, the FOXP2 master gene is absolutely identical.

    With that said, let’s examine the fragment of Starchild Skull FOXP2 sequenced by our geneticist. Of the entire 2,594 base pairs of the normal FOXP2 gene, our fragment is 211 base pairs that come from a segment near the center of the gene. If the same 211 base pair section were isolated from any normal human, every base pair would be exactly the same as what is found in any other human. There would be no difference in any of them.

    Okay, ready….brace yourselves. The Starchild’s 211 base pair FOXP2 fragment has a grand total of 56 variations! Now, while extrapolating this 211 base pair fragment is a bit more of a stretch than extrapolating the four combined fragments of mtDNA we discussed earlier, doing so does provide something to think about. Divide 2,954 by 211, and you get 12.3. Multiply 12.3 by 56, and the range of total variations in the Starchild’s FOXP2 base pairs would be 600 to 700! So let’s be crazy conservative and say it’s only 200 or 300. It is still astounding in a super highly conserved gene that in normal humans has no variations at all!…’

    Your ‘debunking’ of ancient stone structures and maps was just as shoddy. The rock being moved is tiny compared to the massive monoliths and wall blocks at places like Baalbek and look at all the people and sticks they’re using. Would wooden levers and rollers work with such massive (1500 ton) stone blocks? The official story of the pyramid construction requires one massive stone block to be set in place every 8 and 1/2 minutes 24 hours a day for twenty years! (or some equally ridiculous statistic).

    How did these ancient Egyptians create those vases made from Diorite? We couldn’t do it today. How did they incorporate the speed of light and the dimensions of the earth into the great pyramid? What about all the below-sea-level settlements? What about the rainwater erosion on the Sphinx which dates it to at least 12,000 years ago? Why is true history still not being taught in schools?

    As I said, your off-the-shelf ‘debunking’ only exposes you, and in the long run the fact that you can’t explain the actual evidence when pressed only serves to verify its unassailability.

    • I’m sorry, do you know what I read in that gigantic wall of text? “Wah wah wah, I’m clinging to my allusions and because your evidence contradicts my allusions, youtube videos, and conspiracy based websites I’m going to call it false.” Look, you insufferable little halfwit, what I did was quote only the relevant information from my sources. Which you, apparently, don’t have the mental capacity to understand. Maybe I should start taking all my reference from ZEITGEIST (one of the worst examples of false information being provided with false sources in such a way to make it look completely true ever produced) because apparently that’s the only way you’ll ever believe it.

      As for the “Starchild” skull you keep yammering on about, here’s the part of my source which discusses that theory:

      “Pye claims that the skull is the hybrid offspring of an extraterrestrial and a human female. According to Pye, a dentist who examined the upper right maxilla found with the skull determined that the skull was that of a child aged 4.5 to 5 years. The volume, however, of the interior of the starchild skull is 1,600 cubic centimeters, which is 200 cm³ larger than the average adult’s brain, and 400 cm³ larger than an adult of the same approximate size. The orbits are oval and shallow, with the optic nerve canal situated closer to the bottom of the orbit than to the back. There are no frontal sinuses. The back of the skull is flattened. The skull consists of calcium hydroxyapatite, the normal material of mammalian bone. Young children with hydrocephalus typically have an abnormally large head, as fluid pressure causes individual skull bones to bulge outward. Neurologist Steven Novella of Yale University Medical School says that the cranium exhibits all of the characteristics of a child who has died as a result of congenital hydrocephalus, and the cranial deformations were the result of accumulations of cerebrospinal fluid within the skull.”

      And here’s about the DNA:

      “DNA testing in 1999 at BOLD (Bureau of Legal Dentistry), a forensic DNA lab in Vancouver, British Columbia found standard X and Y chromosomes in two samples taken from the skull, “conclusive evidence that the child was not only human (and male), but both of his parents must have been human as well, for each must have contributed one of the human sex chromosomes.” Further DNA testing in 2003 at Trace Genetics, which specializes in extracting DNA from ancient samples, isolated mitochondrial DNA from both recovered skulls. The child belongs to haplogroup C. Since mitochondrial DNA is inherited exclusively from the mother, it makes it possible to trace the offspring’s maternal lineage. The DNA test therefore confirmed that the child’s mother was a Haplogroup C human female.”

      But no, because these tests were done by ACTUAL PROFESSIONAL SCIENTISTS they MUST be false and covering up the evidence of a “StarChild” right? Grow the fuck up you spoiled little eight-year-old. It’s time to be an adult now.

      And, you know what? I’m not going to bother responding to your repeated bullshit about moving the stones when I have actually shown HOW this WAS done and that experiments have been done to back this up. It doesn’t matter if the stones are extremely large, the procedure still remains the same. There are images (admittedly, drawings) and classical descriptions of people using this exact method to move monoliths and megaliths.

      Glad to see you gave up on the map including Antarctica, though.

      Now goodbye, I’m done dealing with your ass. Have fun wearing your tinfoil hat and screaming “STARCHILD!” every time someone tries to have an intelligent debate with you. Fuck you very much.

      • “…Wah wah wah, I’m clinging to my allusions and because your evidence contradicts my allusions, youtube videos, and conspiracy based websites I’m going to call it false…”

        The massive and precisely cut and laid stone blocks in ancient structures all over the world, the starchild skull and DNA, ancient maps, the ice age melting and associated sea level rises, underwater settlements, precision cut granite and diorite artefacts etc etc are not ‘allusions’ they are real, hard, tangible things which exist in the real world. They all contradict the establishment account of history and of human origins and evolution and can’t be addressed, let alone explained with a few pictures of hydrocephalic skulls and men levering car sized stones with sticks. As an explanation it’s insulting.

        The stock debunking nonsense which you copied and pasted (instead of actually addressing any of my points or questions) is deconstructed (line by line) in the following page: fight the stupids.

        I invited you to address the actual evidence, such as the staggering FOXP2 results, but you chose instead to copy/ paste from an error-laden article you found on the internet which was written nearly fifteen years ago. Then you ACCUSED ME of sourcing my information from unreliable sources (referencing the Zeitgeist documentary).

        I’m afraid this kind of willy-nilly approach just demonstrates you are everything you pretend to rant against….. you start out committed to a specific theory/ belief system, you then go looking on the net for anyone else who supports your theory/ belief system, when you find something which agrees with it you copy and paste it without doing any genuine research or critical thinking of your own and then you claim victory.

        You’ve evaded anything which doesn’t fit with (or blatantly contradicts) your theory / belief system. You evade by swearing, making ad hominem attacks and throwing online temper tantrums, similar to the way a squid uses ink. I’m not asking you to ‘believe’, I’m just asking you to engage with the evidence instead of trying to ‘debunk’ it. Debunking is what people do when their belief systems are being threatened. Debunking is all about sabotaging debate, and not participating in debate.

        The skull is similar to a hydrocephalic skull only in the sense that it is enlarged. The similarities end there (and the numerous differences begin). Busses and trains are both examples of big vehicles, which makes them similar in that respect. But there are some very simple observations we can make to determine if a big vehicle is a bus or a train. For the fourth time here is a very easy-to-understand video explaining why the skull cannot possibly be hydrocephalic. I suggest you watch it. Starchild Skull for Dummies

        The ancient maps clearly show a knowledge of the continents which tears apart the mainstream account of history and points to advanced global civilisations stretching as far back as the end of the last ice age. Yet the official – and provably false – ‘Disney’ account of human history and scientific progress remains unchanged and is still being taught in schools. This alone shows how establishment science/ academia is just like religion in that it has no interest in promoting the truth according to reason and evidence. It is corrupt to the core.

        If correct history was taught in schools (including all the unanswered questions and incomplete data) then people would not end up programmed with this absurd Disney-eque belief system. Then they would not be so threatened when confronted by all the hard facts which contradict that Disney-eque belief system.

        The ancient stone structures all over the world are to the establishment scientific/ academic world view (church of progress) what fossils are to the creationist world view.

        The fact that you won’t even admit they are – at the very least – utterly perplexing is the dead giveaway that you’re defending a belief system, rather than being scientific.

        You’ll never hear a committed creationist saying “You know, this fossil record sure is perplexing – and sure does appear to contract everything I currently believe about the world”. People either drop the false belief system they were taught as a child in light of the new evidence they discovered as an adult, or they cling to the belief system and ignore or try to dismiss the evidence any way they can.

        It’s clear you won’t even admit what’s staring you in the face – that we’d struggle AT BEST to achieve half of those structures even with our modern technology – because to even acknowledge that is to begin to acknowledge that what you were taught about history and the world when you were a child is mostly nonsense.

        Science proves that indoctrination in childhood WORKS. Populations can be made to commit genocide AND believe they are doing good, if they are indoctrinated as children in the right way. Populations can be made to love their evil dictators and believe they are the luckiest people in the world when they are actually living as slaves if they are indoctrinated as children in the right way. Populations can be made to believe a man in the sky created the universe in 7 days, before raping a woman as a ghost and letting his son get crucified, bringing him back to life and then beaming him up into space if they are indoctrinated as children in the right way.

        Indoctrination people into the ‘church of progress’ is a piece of cake, by comparison.

        What’s fascinating is that *every generation* has been taught nonsense about history and the world, it’s just that it used to take us several generations (or several centuries) to figure this out and expose it as nonsense……. by which time a new nonsense had replaced it and was being taught as the new truth.

        We are the first generation to really have the ability to expose – in real time – the nonsense that we are being taught, while we are still being taught it!

        Some of us view this prospect with delight….. some of us get really mad and uptight 😉

      • This will be my last response to you. I am through wasting my time and energy on you. About the ONLY thing I agree with you on is that the teaching of History in schools is flawed and uses inaccurate, sometimes conflicting information. Such as the “Discovery of America” by Christopher Columbus in 1492 when there are verified Viking archeological sites in Greenland and Nova Scotia dating from around the year 900 (if not earlier). Or, using the same person as an example, the belief that he “discovered” that the world was round when that had been known for hundreds of years (I believe it was the Greeks who “discovered” it). Though, in fairness, there is at least one “globe” map which depicts a concept of the world being flat which dates to 1893.

        The rest of your nonsense I deem crazy and not worth the headaches it’s been giving me to try and decipher and argue with. Have a nice day.

      • Schwartz – I’ve been busy, I’ve got some logs and wedges and built a pyramid from the instructions supplied above re moving heavy stones. However, this still defeats me :

        “the mean variation of the cutting of the stone from a straight line and from a true square is but 0.1 inch in a length of 75 inches up the face, an amount of accuracy equal to the most modern opticians’ straight edges of such a length. These joints, with an area of some 35 square feet each, were not only worked as finely as this, but were cemented throughout. Though the stones were brought as close as 1/500 of an inch, or, in fact, into contact, and the mean opening of the join was 1/50 of an inch, yet the builders managed to fill the joint with cement, despite the great area of it, and the weight of the stone to be moved- some 16 tons. To merely place such stones in exact contact at the sides would be careful work, but to do so with cement in the joints seems almost impossible’.

        The quote is from the same link supplied in the comment you finished with :

        “Anything else you’d like me to prove for you?.

        Maybe you could start with that ?

        cheers

      • Nope. I’m tired of trying to prove anything to you as well. See, I’m just the guy that keep the mechanical portion of the blog running and occasionally provides opinion in the comments. The ONLY guest article I’ve done and the only one I will ever do is the one on which I first encountered you. I don’t NEED to prove anything to anyone, you especially. And because History happened in the past, and this particular section of History was before live recording mediums were invented to have definitive proof, all we have are theories. Nutjobs like you and AbandonTV will always claim that, because we only have theories, the “facts” aren’t in our favor. You will always have your own “facts” that you got from gods know where and use to refute real evidence. It’s a modern mystery from the ancient times themselves how they managed to do it, but I almost guarantee that aliens had nothing to do with it. If they did have something to do with it, well then, I hope they come back someday and that we are ready, willing, and able to communicate with such individuals as equals. As it is, we can’t even have an intelligent debate amongst ourselves or treat each other as equals. How do you think people from another planet would be treated? But I digress, that is pure speculation. As it stands, the pyramids of giza were built by the ancient egyptian people as a tomb for a Pharaoh and his family to stand monument for all time. And, frankly, they’re doing a pretty good job at it.

    • http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene/93986

      “Mutations in this gene cause speech-language disorder 1 (SPCH1), also known as autosomal dominant speech and language disorder with orofacial dyspraxia.”

      Ohm yeah, that is like.. lethal, and stuff, not just problematic….

      “Multiple alternative transcripts encoding different isoforms have been identified in this gene.”

      Gee.. So…. Its possible to have a lot of different forms of this gene?

      All you seem to be saying is, “This person had more variations than normal.”, then you just to some bloody absurd conclusion as to why. Absurd, because you first have to have some valid evidence of aliens, before you start claiming that genetic variation was caused by breeding with aliens. So, what’s the evidence of aliens? Betting you will bring up crop circles, and a list of other idiocies, which either, again, deny humanity its capacity to invent for itself, are already explained, or, when rarely not explained, like some UFOs, don’t actually qualify as evidence of “space aliens”.

      But, you are pretty much doing what I expected – when presented with evidence, just ignore it, and keep rambling about the same things, over and over, like someone on a hamster wheel. Doesn’t matter what evidence we might provide for our side, the same bloody ridiculous arguments already made will bubble up again, as soon as the new ones are shot down.

      And, the absolute joke being, when ***ever*** has anyone such as you, or Pye, actually expanded our actual understanding of anything? In point of fact – never. You are exactly the same as the sort that suggested that Gryphons had to be real, because fossils where found in places in the Middle East, only.. turns out, they where “fossils”, not bones, and didn’t belong to half bird, half lion, winged absurdities. The only “progress” came after the con artists stopped using them to scare tourists, and trade caravans. Your a damned Alchemist. It doesn’t matter how much you got “right”, when the other 95% of it is completely useless.

      • “..All you seem to be saying is, “This person had more variations than normal.”..”

        Then I suggest you read my comments again – or better yet spend some time on Lloyd Pye’s website and watch at least one of his full length presentations on youtube – because that is NOT what I am saying, nor him.

        “…Absurd, because you first have to have some valid evidence of aliens, before you start claiming that genetic variation was caused by breeding with aliens….”

        So you’re basically suggesting any evidence of X will be dismissed until X has been proved. That’s a circular reasoning. Nobody is ‘claiming’ it is an alien hybrid. The growing body of evidence just points in that direction, that’s all, and so far no other explanation fits this evidence either.

        “..when presented with evidence, just ignore it..”

        Have you presented any actual *evidence* related to the starchild skull? I don’t recall any.

        “…has anyone such as you, or Pye, actually expanded our actual understanding of anything?..”

        It’s a skull with physical features never before seen in any human (deformed or not). Its bone structure and composition not found in any other animal bone on planet earth and its DNA in some areas is less human than rat DNA.

        Whether any of this has the potential to expand your understanding of anything is completely up to you.

  21. @schwarherz

    “… the world was round when that had been known for hundreds of years (I believe it was the Greeks who “discovered” it)…”

    The great pyramid in Giza is an accurate scale model of the Northern hemisphere and it encodes (among many other things) the relative sizes of the earth and moon (as spheres obviously).

    The Sumerians (an advanced culture who seemed to just appear out of nowhere) accurately describe the outer planets of our solar system – planets not officially ‘discovered’ until the last couple of centuries.

    “..I agree with you on is that the teaching of History in schools is flawed and uses inaccurate, sometimes conflicting information. ..”

    Let’s not mince words. The teaching of history (and science) in schools is not ‘flawed’, it is LIES. It is DECEIT. It is FRAUD. It is INDOCTRINATION. It is VIOLENTLY IMPOSED AND IMMENSELY DESTRUCTIVE PROPAGANDA.

    Anyone who does not openly and fully reject these lies and the corrupt self serving institutions which promote them is not being scientific, and cannot honestly claim to be a scientist (professional or amateur).

    We do not need to resort to any speculation or theory. Just the bare facts (raw empirical evidence) alone is enough to completely destroy the official narrative of human history. What our true history might be is a separate issue, and one we’ll never get to the bottom of if we don’t first become intolerant of lies and liars.

    To be satisfied with a ludicrous theory about human history which is refuted a thousand different ways by hard evidence is to merely play at being rational and scientific, while in reality becoming just like all the other mad religious fanatics out there. At least God-based religions have some interesting allegorical levels beyond their crazy literal interpretations (the literal interpretations which were probably only ever designed for the unenlightened masses anyway).

    In this respect mainstream science and academia are far WORSE than organised religion. They also promote dogma and provable lies but don’t even talk about it in terms of faith. This makes breaking free of scientific dogma and lies even more difficult and disorientating than breaking free of religious dogma and lies.

    There is not one scientist or academic in the mainstream arena who actually speaks the truth (ie talks about the evidence) about human history and the relevant scientific / technological implications. In terms of being professions that is the equivalent of not having a single pilot capable of flying a commercial passenger jet!

    It’s an absolute disgrace. People will look back on this time and view us all as literally mentally retarded. And they’ll be right.

  22. @schwarherz – “….Note the words “seems” and “almost.”….”

    The structures in question exist, and they are not natural rock formations, which means they must have been constructed by intelligent life, which in turn means their construction can’t be literally impossible. (Elementary logic). Hence the words ‘seems’ and ‘almost’.

    But their construction most certainly CAN be impossible if we restrict ourselves to primitive technologies such as ropes, wooden wedges, human slaves and pounding them with rocks!

    Anyway, I don’t want to distract you from your calculations…

  23. @schwarherz

    “…I’m tired of trying to prove anything to you as well….”

    Perhaps when you’re not so tired you could provide the evidence needed to support your claims and theories. A simple link would do. Two sentences max.

    You come across as very confident that primitive tools were used to create such magnificently precise and grand structures, so you MUST be able to provide a quick summary (or link) to explain WHY you are so confident ….. unless you are (as I suggested) just repeating a bunch of unsubstantiated beliefs which you were taught when you were a child.

    “..I don’t NEED to prove anything to anyone…”

    True. You only need to prove things (or at least provide some evidence and a reasoned argument) if you want to enter into a grown up debate. If you want to just stay at the level of ‘belief’, ‘faith’ you can just make unfounded claims and leave it at that.

    Even a speculative ‘theory’ requires some sort of tentative explanation, something you have not yet offered.

    “…And because History happened in the past, and this particular section of History was before live recording mediums were invented to have definitive proof, all we have are theories…”

    Incorrect. The size, weight, composition, precision and location of the stone blocks has not altered over time (unlike most other buildings which have all fallen apart!). It does not make ANY difference whether these structures were built 10,000 years ago, 4000 years ago or last Wednesday…. the feasibility (or not!) of building them with primitive tools like rope and wedges remains is the same for each.

    The structures themselves ARE recoded history. They are better than any a film or a photograph. The fact that we can have thousand ton stone blocks staring us all in the face and you can claim we have ‘no proof’ shows just how effective the modern education system is at dumbing us down.

    “…You will always have your own “facts” that you got from gods know where and use to refute real evidence…”

    There’s no need to put “facts” in quotations. The facts we refer to are literally set in stone. Are you suggesting those stone structures don’t exist, or are fake? If not then we agree on what the facts are.

    You ned to study the trivium. Start putting the WHAT before the WHO, HOW and WHY.

    “…It’s a modern mystery from the ancient times themselves how they managed to do it, but I almost guarantee that aliens had nothing to do with it…”

    Your ‘guarantee’ is just another unsubstantiated claim. If you’re going to make a claim please back it up with reason and evidence, otherwise you’re just telling us what you believe, which is very boring.

    “…As it is, we can’t even have an intelligent debate amongst ourselves or treat each other as equals…”

    Yes we can. All we need to do is follow these simple rules.

    1. Provide your best reason and/ or evidence to support any claims you make. Try to avoid just telling everyone what you personally ‘believe’.
    2. Try to restrain from ad hominem attacks.
    3. Try not to overload the debate with an endless stream of opinions, distractions, non sequiturs and logical fallacies (argument from authority, argument from ignorance, argument from consensus etc)

    “…As it stands, the pyramids of giza were built by the ancient egyptian people as a tomb for a Pharaoh and his family to stand monument for all time…”

    That is just claim made by Egyptologists. All the evidence contradicts it.

    No mummies were ever found in the great pyramids. They contain no hieroglyphs. Not even the name of the Pharaoh they were supposed to have been built for! The Egyptians themselves said the great pyramids were there long before they were, and they only claimed to have done restoration work on them. They left meticulous records of everything they did including their grooming habits….. if they built the pyramids it’s likely they would have made a note of it somewhere!

    Also, the substantial erosion on the Sphinx is caused by rainwater run off. The last time there was substantial rain in Giza was more than 10,000 years ago. Also the pyramids lie precisely on the banks of the Nile… but not where the Nile runs today but where the Nile used to run perhaps tens of thousands of years ago before it shifted to the East.

    Also some of the later pyramids which we know WERE built by the Egyptians are crappy imitations (basically piles of rubble). Egyptian culture (like sumerian) came out of nowhere and then degraded over time.

    This evidence (and much more besides) directly contradicts the claims made by Egyptologists, which is where you got your silly ideas about logs, ropes and wedges from.

  24. The fact that the author buys the official narrative of the Kennedy assassination thoroughly discredits him as any kind of genuine skeptic. Being a “debunker” is clearly some kind of strangely conceived ideology to you.

    I suppose the fact that bullets test-fired through animal cadavers were far more damaged than CE399 means nothing to you, nor does the fact that a microscopic examination revealed that there wasn’t a trace of blood or tissue on it. That it was found on the wrong stretcher is also insignificant, I suppose.

    Your portrayal of the “conspiracy theories” surrounding the assassination shows how little you know about the case. What are you basing your high-and-mighty pronouncements on? Did you see a couple of documentaries? Read “Reclaiming History” or “Case Closed”? Virtually every one of the experts in the field regards the Warren Panel and these defenses of it as total jokes, and they’ve thoroughly debunked these offerings.

    Here is an update on some of the newer information on CE399, for any genuine skeptics out there:
    http://www.ctka.net/2011/Harris_Bell_Article.html

    Moving away from the physical aspects of the assassination case, don’t you find it a little odd that the “dyslexic and troubled Oswald” was no less than a degree of separation from the CIA for the entirety of his life?

    People who change the meaning of skepticism to “defending the establishment view of the world” make me sick to my stomach. People like that are essentially transforming themselves into the American Empire’s pro bono attorneys to stroke their own egos. Disgusting.

    • My voyage to the “establishment view” of the Kennedy assassination was a long and circuitous one. For many years I believed in a CIA/Mafia conspiracy. But then I started paying attention.

  25. If you are tired of 9/11 conspiracy nuts then read the only forensic scientific study in the public domain…

    Dr. Wood’s book is not about a conspiracy theory or a theory at all. It is a 540 page book about factual evidence, empirical evidence that reveals the truth in a way that is undeniable to anyone who reads it. Dr. Wood’s book has not been refuted by anyone, nor can it be. Those that choose to focus on hearsay, speculation, conspiracy theories, or unqualified opinions while ignoring irrefutable factual evidence by avoiding it is what keeps a cover-up in place. Diverting the public to arguing between the two false choices of “9/11 Truthers” verses “The Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory” while ignoring the facts is classic perception management designed to hide and obscure the evidence.

    It wasn’t poor construction, jet fuel, demolition charges of any type, missiles or planes, mini-nukes, or super-duper-micro-mini-nano-thermite that turned two quarter mile high buildings with a combined weight of over a million tons into microscopic dust particles in mid-air taking less than 10 seconds each. There were over 100 floors in each tower. Try clapping your hands 100 times in 10 seconds.

    The truth does not depend on who supports it. Truth is not a club or a matter of “opinion” or “belief”. Neither is truth a political or economic objective. Truth doesn’t have sides. The truth is singular and the truth is unifying. By reading Dr. Wood’s research and collection of evidence as compiled in her book the truth is known, so there is no need to “Re-investigate 9/11” or “call for a new investigation” unless the objective is to divert everyone away from the truth. If you want unity, then seek the truth by reading her book. If you were assigned to do a book report, would you read the book or rely on rumors, conjecture, and uninformed opinions from other people? This isn’t about beliefs, it is about evidence.

    Now those that have read her book know the truth. Those covering it up should be held accountable. After all, it is the cover up that has enabled what has transpired since 9/11, not what happened on 9/11. So the cover up of 9/11 has been a far worse crime than 9/11 itself. Remember, the truth is known and is knowable. What should be done about those covering it up?

    WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?
    Hardcover: 540 pages
    Publisher: The New Investigation (September 11, 2010)
    Language: English
    ISBN-10: 0615412564
    ISBN-13: 978-0-615-41256-6
    LCCN: 2090916516
    Images and Diagrams: over 860 full color
    Shipping Weight: 3.5 pounds
    Product Dimensions: 10.25 x 7.25 x 1.4 inches
    http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/buy/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s