Neanderthal Public Image Improving

Neandethal Artistic CompsiteIt would appear that Neanderthal’s reputation is finally starting to catch up with their character. A report just published in Nature journal has done two very important things for Neanderthals. First, it shows that they were much more sophisticated than historians have depicted them and secondly, it has pushed their date of sophistication back three fold into prehistory. Until now most experts considered the oldest show of any culture and civilization by Neanderthal to be their cave art, which is only considered to go back to about 40,000 years ago.

Recently there has been a lot of new discoveries or new tests on old discoveries that have given a new image to our Neanderthal cousins. We now know that Neanderthals made tools, used fire, made art, buried their dead, and perhaps even had language. “The new findings have ushered a transformation of the Neanderthal from a knuckle-dragging savage rightfully defeated in an evolutionary contest, to a distant cousin that holds clues to our identity,” wrote Lydia Pyne in Nautilus.

Bruniquel Cave
Bruniquel Cave via The Atlantic

The crowning jewel of the recent new discoveries is the Bruniquel Cave. The Aveyron Valley in the southwest of France is home to at least 15 prehistoric sites and the newest site on the list is the aforementioned cave with wondrous round areas designated by the intentional placement of broken off stalagmites. The site was discovered in 1990, by a young boy, whose father had noticed the air flow from the scree. Thus this young man spent the next 3 years opening a small 30 meter long entrance into the cave, which was then explored by members of the local cave club, upon seeing the importance of the discovery they brought in archaeologist Francois Rouzaud. During the initial investigation, a burnt bear bone found in the cave was carbon-dated to 47,600 years ago, making it the oldest find for Neanderthal in the area.

Bruniquel cave France Neandethal
Bruniquel Cave Study Slide 1

Now, there has been new testing that has yielded new dates. What makes this discovery so amazing is not just its date, but its sophistication of the construction in the cave. Interestingly, the new dates for the cave construction, which is ~176,500 years ago, takes us almost to the mid point of another recent discovery that has added more spice to the recipe of how hominins came and went and merged and split. A team from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology has pieced together the oldest mitochondrial genome known from 400,000 year old bones found in a cave in Northern Spain. One of the surprises of this study was that the individuals, thought to be the early ancestors of Neanderthal, instead were more closely related to Denisovans, a group thought to be much more prominent further East and even having origins somewhere in Asia. Anatomically speaking though the individuals do not resemble their Denisovian descendants and one theory is that the hominins from Spain may be from before a split that possibly created both Neanderthals and Denisovans. The article for the oldest DNA can be found at The Scientist and the full study report can be found in Nature.

How the DNA study plays into our finds is that it gives only 200,000 years of separation between the existence of hominins that seem to predate Neanderthal maybe by more than one or two evolutionary splits and our believed Neanderthal presence in the Bruniquel Cave with the social and cultural skills already in place to have constructed the round areas showing at least intermediate technological skill as well. However, we do not as of yet have enough answers to say that some of the ancestor hominins and their descendants species did not share the same space and time. We know that both Denisovans and Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon and another unidentified hominin species did share time and space.

This new find, which can be read in abstract in The Atlantic with the full study findings reported in Nature, has certainly opened the door for many new questions that will need to find answers and lots of possibilities for those answers.


Decrypting A Mayan Mystery

William Gadoury via CSA
William Gadoury via CSA

In the last few days there has been talk about the discovery of a new Mayan city by a schoolboy from Canada. William Gadoury has been interested in all things Maya for most of his young life. He has taken his interest seriously and used his curiosity and creativity to look for more understanding of the culture that stirs his imagination.

It has long been pondered about how the Maya chose the sites for some of their greatest cities. They are not near water sources. They are not along coasts. They are not along trade routes. They are not on grid patterns. They are not in open plains. They are not strategically impressive. Thus a question has plagued scholars for years; Why build cities in the middle of the jungle away from natural resources, especially water, and seeming to ignore all other logical rationale for human settlement? In most cases Mayan cities remained hidden and undisturbed of hundreds of years, due in part to the jungle having so completely reclaimed them. This adds another factor to the seeming illogical, irrational methods employed by a very intellectual culture in this area.

maya civilization-nwsisdmrc wordpress

If we allow that the Mayans created their own calendar system, then they were incredibly intelligent and logical and rational, based on the mathematical skill required to create a calendar system that rivals our computer aided time-keeping in its accuracy. If we also allow that they and they alone built their cities, they were also incredibly skilled engineers and masons and artisans. Yet, between all these intelligent and skilled individuals their city locations seem beneath them based on logic and reason. It seems highly improbable that they did not see the need to have natural resources available for the masses, nor that they missed the need for defenses from regional enemies. Thus, it seems that one needs to look for some other more important reason for why their cities are placed in such unusual places.

Enter our young schoolboy from Canada. Mr. Gadoury studied the Madrid Codex and located 23 constellations that held enough importance to the Maya to be recorded. His theory was that the stars had great importance for the Maya, maybe even extreme importance. What William Gadoury decided to try was logically creative. He took the constellation maps and laid them over the area of Central America that was the Land of the Mayans and he found that the stars and cities matched.

via Canadian Space Agency

While, this in and of itself is significant in understanding the values and mental state of the Mayan elite, the best part was found in the 23rd constellation, which has 3 bright stars in its make up. When matching this constellation with known sites only 2 of the 3 stars has known complimentary sites. So Gadoury then used Google Earth to look at the area that matched the 3rd star without a matching known site. WOW! He found an area of the jungle canopy that was more uniform in shape than one would expect, unless it was covering something man-made.

As of yet, the site has not publicly been the object of a LiDAR search. So, while, Armand LaRocque, an honorary research associate at the University of New Brunswick, and the Canada Space Agency have supported and assisted Gadoury in his research and even claimed that in addition to the pyramid an additional 30 buildings have been located, it will not be accepted until a physical on-site discovery is documented.

However, considering the stance of several ‘experts’ in the various connected fields that 1) use of maps is a modern Western invention and thus cannot be used to locate ancient sites (I do not understand this conclusion on any level) and 2) that the Maya did not use stars to place cities (yet, I have heard of no sound and logical explanation of their unique site placement), it seems highly unlikely that even if a significant site is discovered in the proposed location due credit or even serious consideration will be given to the theory presented by Mr. William Gadoury.

Why Do We Trust Carbon14 Dates?

carbon dating cycle chart
Illustration by Jayne Doucette, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

When it comes to history and especially archaeology one of the biggest questions is “When did it happen?” In 1940 Martin Kamen introduced the world to Carbon14. Carbon14 (C14) is an isotope of Carbon. If you are not sure why it is Carbon14 as opposed to just Carbon or a different isotope, such as Carbon12 (C12), it has to do with the number of protons and neutrons that each contain. All carbon atoms have 6 protons, but the isotopes C14 and C12 have different numbers of neutrons and thus have differing levels of radioactivity, a C12 isotope has 6 neutrons therefore C14 has 8 neutrons, this difference in numbers of neutrons also changes the mass(weight) of the atoms as well.

Willard F Libby ACS
Willard F. Libby via ACS

Seven years later Willard F. Libby presented the world with a method using C14 for radiocarbon dating. The theory of radiocarbon dating is based on the belief that the atmosphere contains a constant amount of C14 and therefore, each living thing dies containing a constant amount of C14. This ‘constant’ presence combined with the constant rate of decay is the foundation of radiocarbon dating. Using a comparison between the base level of C14 of living or carbon based items against the current level of C14 in a sample the methods states that the sample can be accurately dated. This is determined by the constant decay rate of the isotopes over time. Thus by taking the original number of isotopes at the time of death, a number thought to be an universal constant always (something that I think very arrogant) and comparing it to the number of isotopes left in the specimen when tested an ‘accurate’ date is determined.

nuclear explosion
Atomic Explosion via Wikipedia

The method is more complex than explained above, for one, since, the atom bomb had been invented prior to the method of radiocarbon dating, Libby used the amount of C14 isotopes based on numbers from pre-industrial age samples. In order to help with the proper determination of dates scientists have applied information from tree-rings to calibrate dates suggested by radiocarbon analysis. This practice quietly admits problems with radiocarbon dating. The problem is twofold actually, first any radioactive release into the atmosphere, say by a nuclear explosion can greatly increase the amount of C14 in the atmosphere, on the other hand, the increase in carbon monoxide and other byproducts referred to collectively as greenhouse gasses, such as from burning fossil fuels, actually reduces the amount of C14 in the atmosphere. It is known that these radiations and greenhouse gases can be introduced into the atmosphere by other than man-made means. We also have no conclusive information about contaminants having been introduced by any means in ancient or pre-historic times. These issues show that we cannot be sure of the amount of C14 in the atmosphere at any time in history. Therefore, any date that is based solely on C14 is suspect at best.

asteriod impact disclose tv

This addition of information to determine dates, does not eliminate several issues with the process as a whole. It is not totally the method that is flawed, however, the results will be flawed with the addition of carbon into a sample, thus resulting in newer or younger dates than should be. And the older the original piece is will determine just how flawed the results can be. And the amount of ‘extra’ carbon does not need to be significant to cause flaws that could place samples in totally different and more recent epochs than they should be. And the amount of C14 as the base-line number is such that in the absolute best circumstances you can only get an accurate date of up to 50,000 years ago give or take on the statistical variance. That is a geologic and thus historic blink of the eye.

the Dinosaurs Extinction
Time Of Extinction 

One of the questions that skeptics of the radiocarbon model pose is that there is no absolute way to know if things in Earth’s past could not have changed the level of C14 isotopes in the atmosphere over a significant period of time, thus implying that the constant has not always been the same. While geologists recognize things such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, they seem to discount the fact that catastrophes can have significant and or dramatic impact on the Earth over time. There also seems to be little belief that things such as cosmic ray bombardment or solar storms could have anything to do with climate on Earth and there is little knowledge about how much radiation can be added to the atmosphere and how long it remains when it does happen.

Northern Lights
Northern Lights

We allow for the extinction of the dinosaurs by an asteroid impact, yet we do not allow for any cosmic impact in the time of man. This being said there was a Solar Flare Storm in the 19th century that disrupted all manners of communication and industry in the Northern hemisphere. The event is well documented, yet, due to technological limitations and knowledge, no one at the time tested for the increase of radiation to the atmosphere.  In addition, much more of the hemisphere was witness to the amazing spectre of the Aurora borealis, which was a direct visual result of the increased radioactive debris that was flung into the atmosphere. Another, issue is that as previously stated in developing the method it was known that atomic explosions, which released radioactive waves into the atmosphere, can also occur with impacts of asteroids and meteorites, which can be on the magnitude of several atomic bombs and even create nuclear winters, will increase the C14 amounts. This is why a date prior to the industrial age was chosen as the base line date for determining the proper amount of C14 for dating purposes. However, not being at a point where we understood or cared about the impact of the industrial age on our environment we did not realize the effect over time that it would have on the atmosphere. This reduction of C14 brought on by industrial pollution now means that a piece of linen made and tested today would give the same date results as a piece of linen worn by William the Conquer about 1000 years ago.


FOUND: The Real Unicorn

Domenichinounicorn Pal Farnese
probably by Domenico Zampieri, c. 1602 (Palazzo Farnese, Rome)

Throughout known history man has told fantastic stories of wonderful creatures and terrifying monsters. There are even depictions of creatures at ancient sites that some argue are representation of dinosaurs or other extinct creatures that supposedly the artisans would have no knowledge of. Of these mythical creatures, one of the most beloved is the unicorn. In modern romanticize versions this majestic creature has all the characters of a horse with a spiral shaped horned. But what is the actual basis for the unicorn?

In the Old Testament of the Bible, there are up to 5 verses that use the word unicorn to describe a beast, either metaphorically or realistically. It is believed that these references refer to an animal more like an oxen, bull or bison with large horns. This would make sense since the bull was a very important animal to most cultures of the time. An animal listed as an unicorn can also be found listed in the natural histories of the ancient world, such as Greece. One example of this would be from Ctesias, who in his book Indika (“On India”) described them as wild asses, fleet of foot, having a horn a cubit and a half (700 mm, 28 inches) in length, and colored white, red and black. And this or similar definitions are found in other Natural Histories of the Ancient World, by greats such as Aristotle, Strabo and Pliny the Elder. However, in spite of these references by respected learned men of the past, most scientists today will laugh at the idea of unicorns being real. This is due to a change in the definition of the original word.

RT_Asian_RhinoThe word unicorn is from the Latin unicornis or unicornium, which means basically a beast with one horn. This is opposed to a bicornis, which is a beast that has two horns. One need only to look at the scientific names of rhinoceros to see that unicorns are scientifically real. The Asian One-Horned Rhinoceros is Rhinoceros unicornis.

Now it can be pointed out that the modern-day Rhinos do not have horns that are ‘a cubit and a half in length’. However, what might have their horns looked like hundreds or thousands of years ago? Or what might other species of rhinos or similar animals have looked like? There is a creature that scientists have claimed became extinct hundreds of thousands years ago, or before the ‘history of man’ and thus would be unknown to modern man or to ancient historians. This ‘pre-historic’ creature known to science as Elasmotherium sibiricum, is more commonly known as the Siberian Unicorn. This creature according to experts died out over 350,000 years ago.

Siberian Unicorn
painting by Henrich Harder c. 1920

Once again, Mother Nature, has shown that we do not always know everything, most of the time we do not. Recently, a new skull of the Elasmotherium sibiricum was found near Kozhamzhar village, Pavlodar, Kazakhstan. The skull was tested by Tomsk State University (TSU) in Russia; the results of these testing found that the ‘Siberian Unicorn’ was living as recently as 29,000 years ago. This date is well within the known dates for ‘modern man’ to be living in the same area and thus in a very good position to have witnessed the creature and told stories of its existence.

These creatures are more a cross between mammoths and rhinos. So they were big hairy beasts of the grasslands. They roamed large areas of Siberia. This new find will give scientists more information about the survival of certain animals in the midst of environmental changes. This information could help protect other species in the future.


The Origin of Life on Earth

El Tatio Chile via credit twiga_269

Where did we come from?
How did life start?
What is the origin of man?

These are questions that have been pondered by man since the beginning. One answer, the workings of evolution, was proposed by Charles Darwin in his On The Origins Of Species. There are an unknown number of different life forms currently sharing this planet. And there have been an even larger number of unknown species that have roamed the lands and seas in the epochs of the past. To date there have been 1.5 million species cataloged and a best guess estimate of up to another 8 million that have not been cataloged. These numbers only look at current species and not at previous inhabitants of the planet. And everyday, scientists predict that species that have not even been ‘discovered’ are going extinct at the hands of man.

Evolution project by NTamura

While the actions of man are a whole ugly 50 gallon barrel of worms, we will leave it for another day. Today we are exploring the pondering of where we (all life) came from. And to that means the generally accepted and propagated fact is that all life emerged from the primordial ooze. Once emerged the fact of natural selection took over and brought us to today. Now, before you die hard evolutionists want to start screaming that evolution has been proven over and over again and thus is FACT. I counter you; not, that some aspects of evolution are not true, but, that evolution as presented by Mr. Darwin is only part of the story, and honestly, he did not get it all right, but, he was on to a few pieces of the puzzle.

Now, not to offend or leave out the other side, the creationists. If one studies the myths of creation, a large number of them speak of either God, a god, or a specific god, such as Zeus, creating man from dirt, mud or clay from the earth. That all creatures were created in their current ‘state’ and that man is the chosen species. When discovering other myths from various cultures we also hear of different kinds of man or man-like species that have come and gone. There are also myths that tell of even different times of our own mankind with regard to our life-spans, our sizes, and other physical features. While both camps seem mostly unwilling to even look at the other point of view, I would argue that they both are equally wrong and equally right!

After everyone gets over being mad at me, do yourself and mankind a favor and continue reading.

So let’s now look at the real facts. Both sides have ‘life’ coming out of mud or a puddle or pile of dirt. Sounds like the same thing to me. Both sides have ‘different man-kind’ living at different times in our history. Both sides have man ‘changing’ in some way or ways over time. As we can see if you strip away the division we can find that the basics, the foundations of both sides are basically the same.


Yet, we can also look at each side and find some pieces that each builds on that are not solid in their own right. The creationists are unwilling to accept that some of their myths have time-lines that are not accurate. Another fact that is somewhat challenging to prove, in most myths are the outside influences of deities, demons, and others.  While it is true that the devil is in the details; sometimes, the trick is to understand just what the details are defining. Also, there should be understanding of the story-teller and the listener to the story. Think of how you might answer the same question posed by a child and by an adult. Something that we have lost in our modern era is that actual art of story-telling and thus it creates confusion and lack of understanding. It is like reading a epic in a language that you have elementary knowledge of.

Then there are the Darwinists, who claim that we all progressed from the same single-celled one in a google chance amoeba. Which would actually mean that there were by the science numbers up to 10 million of those similarly luckiest single-cells, which would actually make them utterly common and thus should have been replicated by now, by those same scientists. The most basic concept of natural selection that is those species that do not adapt die off and that each species always adopts the genes that make them the strongest. That supposition suggests that we should actually have fewer species now than we do and it also suggests that we should basically only have ONE of each different species. Now before you get your safety goggles all steamed up; yes, I know that I am over simplifying the process…but, bear with me the simplicity helps limit the discussion to a starting point.
But the biggest issue with evolution is that we do not seem to be able to find the missing links that prove the jumping of species.

tool use by birds

What I mean is that we do not have any of the missing links that supposedly had to exist to make life on earth a single tree of life instead of a forest of life. Evolutionists can in some species follow, for example all dogs and wolves and other canines back to a possible ancestor, they have yet to get the canine and feline back to the same ancestor. All of the ‘original’ ancestors are theorized not discovered and cataloged. Most importantly, the scientific definition of what makes us ‘man’ or different from animals has to keep changing. Man is defined by culture, but what is culture? It was the use of tools, but there are other animals that use tools; it was the use of language, but numerous animals use vocalizations to communicate which is the accepted definition of language.

Yes, there some features that all or groups of species have in common, but that in and of itself does not support evolution in its totality. Just as the differences do not in and of themselves disprove evolution for creationism. This is a story that cannot be told until both sides admit they do not know the whole of the story and that both sides have pieces of the puzzle if they will work together we will be able to put the whole thing together sooner.

DNA: The Most Accurate Ignorance In History

In recent history, the last few decades, all the rage to prove the written history has been centered on the new love affair with the absoluteness of DNA. I know what ALL you PRO DNAers are thinking, it is DNA. And DNA doesn’t lie. It is accurate,it is pure, and it is ALL fact. For what it does, yes, I allow that DNA does not in and of itself lie. That being said DNA can only tell a few details in an enormous story! The proof of the detail is only as good as the supporting facts, which as we know, can be incomplete, biased or limited in scope and or depth.

vitstudiostock via

A good example is that of most ethnic DNA studies, to show that all of this group or that group have this gene or that marker in common are incredibly handicapped. The problem is several fold; first, the studies are conducted with a very, very, small number of believed members of the whole group, when I say that I mean like in some cases less than 1% of the population of the group as a whole. Tell me of any experiment that would hold up to any rigorous peer review with less than 1% of a population whole being tested and not even that group has 100% results of the find. Let me put this is in a better example for you to understand how these absolute facts are being taken out of their limited context to prop up huge theories….Aliens come to Earth and their ‘Scotty’ beams up 70 out of 7 billion Earthlings 28 of whom have both blonde hair and blue eyes, so they state in their Wikipedia, that Earthlings are humanoids with blonde hair and blue eyes and thus it is blonde hair and blue eyes that determines a humanoid is an Earthling.

DNA Molecule of Life

However, in addition to usually using no more than 1000 examples of a group, which for most ethnic groups is nothing, they are not consistent with being able to have properly chosen the right examples of a group. What do I mean? If you have ever attempted to trace your family tree you know what I am talking about; if you haven’t, trust me you will learn just how much of what we think we know, we either cannot prove or we prove is totally wrong. There were many reasons for persons to get married and as we still know, being married does not insure fidelity, and there were even more reasons for false information to be given for many noble and not so noble reasons. You have no idea what I am talking about; I am talking about affairs, rape, molestation, war, invasions, religious persecutions, ethnic cleansing, assimilation. Trust me there is way more contaminated DNA in ethnic groups then we want to admit to. For me to accept any DNA study as an absolute you would have to base it on a closed society and we don’t do that, cause we do not have any truly closed societies. We do have societies that have stayed semi-isolated, but we cannot even be completely sure of just how pure their DNA is either. Thus, every DNA test that is trying to find differences between ethnic groups is flawed based on the fact that we can safely assume that all donations are contaminated. While I believe that we should try to never assume, as making assumptions and playing them off as facts is how we have gotten so much of history wrong, based on the examples that I have given you it is highly probable that most samples will be contaminated.


Now before you get upset that I am screaming foul, I am not. I am not saying that the DNA tests are as poorly done as the study of the Giza Necropolis. What I am saying is that like with the Pyramids, just cause you have a rectangle box that some people think is large enough for a body to fit in that does not make it a tomb, thus less than 1% of a population having a similar trait or gene or marker does not make that a standard for that ‘race’/ethnic group. Also, just like people either went to or lived along the banks of the Nile and built the wonders of Giza, but we do not know that they had always been in Giza/Egypt and the people that live along the Nile today are not the same people that lived there no matter when you think the Pyramids were built. And that goes for pretty much EVERYWHERE in the world today. That also does not mean that there was not any mixing of those peoples and these peoples.

Here is the bottom line, DNA is a fact from one point of view. If 2 people stand facing each other they will see totally different views, this does not make either one wrong, mater of fact they are both right. But to know the whole story, you have to be willing to take both truths and use them as they are, not more and not less, to help tell the whole story and to understand that you only have 2 points of view and that is only part of the whole. But we have to learn that each and every part of the story is important to the whole and we cannot leave out parts that we do not like or that are not pretty then we are losing parts of the story that is our own.

Some links to related articles:

EDIT: Below are articles where DNA got it WRONG and innocent men were jailed for it…..


How Old Is Old

oldest person ever
Jeanne Louise Calment

According to Guinness World Records, the ‘oldest person ever’ was 122; however, there are claims of others that are older than that……from Nepal to Brazil there are claims for persons living well past Ms. Calment’s 122 years……..

Jose Aguinelo dos Santos, has been issued a birth certificate giving his date of birth as July 7 1888; this would not only make him 126 years old, but also possibly the first free child born to slaves in Brazil, which had abolished slavery just 2 months before his birth. The senior home where Jose resides hopes to conduct tests which will support his age claim. In addition to Senor Santos, there is Senora Leandra Becerra Lumbreras of Mexico, reported to be 127, whom has out lived all 5 of her children and by her admission fought in the Mexican Revolution of 1910. Even more amazing is the story of Bir Narayan Chaudhuri of Nepal; it is claimed that he was 141 when he died in 1998.

As amazing as these stories are, there are even more amazing ages claimed in numerous ancient texts from various cultures. Once again though, the academics are faced with concepts that they seem unable to wrap their published, tenured brains around. The result is most scholars outright deny any fact in the numbers or if they do they say the numbers are wrong. Once again there is the case of scholars using part of a text for historical fact backing while completely dismissing another part of the same text as mere story telling or bad translation or exaggeration. If you follow the logic of these scholars then it would appear that ancient peoples were at best frequent liars and at worse were delusional misguided propagandists. If either is the case then how can scholars in good conscience use any of the texts as reliable sources? 

Sumerian Kings List
Sumerian Kings List via

The question that logic has to ask is… How is it that the authors of texts of Ancient Egypt and the Sumerian King List and the Bible and The Chinese Encyclopedia of Materia Medica all chose to LIE about the dates of the people? While, living a long life or ruling for a long time is an impressive thing….would not doing things in incredibly short time spans be MORE impressive? I do understand the significance of claiming ownership to land or throne based on lineage and possession….ie. this land has been ruled by Sumerians, Persians, Egyptians or this is the land of Noah or Adam or Abraham….but then you have to ask…who were the authors trying to ‘out-live’ or ‘out-rule’? And why for so many years?

There have been lots of theories, as simple as, the numbers have been mistranslated, to their ‘years’ were moon cycles not our solar calendar years, to the numbers were added for their mathematical significance. The problem that arises is thus, if it is bad translating than why was it only in numbers of ages or reigns, and why hasn’t it been properly translated since? If the issue is the defining of ‘years’ then why doesn’t any application of what their ‘year’ could have been hold across all the examples? If the numbers are a code then again for the code to be useful it has to be consistent and verifiable…..again not all the ages in any one text holds up to these tests of wrongness. But most notably, why do the ages/reigns decrease to ‘acceptable’ times within each text?

childhoodI read, in an article, of which I do not now recall, a telling question that I think can be answered in the ancient texts….Why are human childhoods so long? If you rationalize that a creature’s childhood is a certain percent of their life, whether it be 10% or 25% then you can determine that different creatures have different life spans relative to their development. You also have to define what childhood is. Is it just the physical growth to full grown; or is it the over all development of a mature speciman? If it is the time of physical growth, then humans have a childhood of about 12 to 15 years for females and 14 to 18 years for males, compared to 9 to 12 months for cats and dogs. The average life span of cats and dogs is about 12 to 14 years, with some living as long as 20.  So for simple math lets say that cats/dogs have a childhood of 12 months or 1 year and a life span of 14 years….that means they spend 7.14% of their lives in childhood. So, again just for easy math, lets say ‘all’ creatures spend 7% of their lives in childhood then humans who spend 15 years in childhood should live for about 214 years and if you top out our childhood at 20 years our lifespan jumps to 286! So maybe the answer to why our childhoods last so long is that it is left over from when we lived longer.

Most of the people that live to 100+ years seem to live mostly rural and simple lives. They seem to be throw backs to ‘old ways’ of living. They are rarely rich by material means. They appear happy, content and fulfilled. They speak of their blessings and not their regrets. It seems that the secret to living longer lives is to actually live life and enjoy each day to the best of your ability. Maybe if we all do that we can be our own amazing story in 100 years!


The Low Down on Ley Lines

Ley-Lines-1-World-View-1 via beforeitsnews

One of the most little known, but often misused terms, with regard to discovering our past or human origins is the term ley lines. So lets see if we can search through all the static and find the ground under our feet, which is really all that Alfred Watkins was doing in his book The Old Straight Track.

Being very interested in the landscape of the countryside by profession, meant that Watkins was observant in his travels across Britain. One day, while out driving along the countryside, he stopped and observed what he thought was a ‘pattern’. His idea actually seems logical and makes mathematical sense, in so much as, the shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line.

Even archaeologists  admit that the logic and reason applied makes sense and is supported by  locations of historical sights in some areas. They claim that it seems that if it were possible that ancient peoples at least in certain locales and or over periods of time in larger areas seem to regularly build on a line or in a line.

What was it that Watkins observed? As stated above he noticed several details and gave them a wholeness. Being a landscape photographer, he went to numerous sites around Britain and it was in doing this that he noticed very ancient paths that crossed the landscapes in basically straight lines. In Watkins theory, each ley line started or ended with a hill, also that if you come across an ancient sacred site you would most certainly find at least one ley line crossing the site or extending from the site.

leyline via secretdalmatia wordpress
via secretdalmatia@wordpress

The New Age movement has turned the concept of ley lines into a metaphysical ancient secret. Of course that has allowed academics to have great ammo in shooting down theories of any type about the existence and or importance of ley lines to the ancients or us. Skeptics like Benjamin Radford, go so far as to completely misspeak when he claims that it was purely practical matters that determined the location of ancient sites. Guess he missed that there is not really anything practical about the location of Machu Picchu, and the stones used for Stonehenge were from about 200km away. Mica sheets found in temples in Mexico were from Brazil. Thus, clearly indicating that there was nothing practical about these locations, certainly not regarding building materials as he claims.

The New Age researchers have claimed various theories such as energy fields within the Earth or the gathering of spiritual energy at these ancient sites. I am not here to dispute any of that, as I do believe that the Earth is full of energy and also that we can find spiritual energy in many places. However, not being present in ancient times nor possessing any documents or other irrefutable evidence giving a specific and direct reason for why certain sites were chosen or the reason certain paths/roads were used, I also will not give my support to any side.

I will say this; I think waking a straight line or having straight line of sight is a logical justification for ley lines, that being said, I also know that we all have places where we will feel relaxed or happy or content or nervous or uncomfortable or whatever without any apparent reasons for said feelings, so at this point any and all theories might be correct in part or whole.


How to decide the value of a human life

There are numerous points of view that insist that the pharmaceutical companies creates more illness and disease than it cures or prevents. Well if we look at it logically, where is the profit or job security in preventing disease for the pharmacological industry. But this is not the only contributing factor to an increase in our diseased population. Pollution, industry, change in lifestyle all contribute to the decrease in our health and happiness.
One of the increases that we have seen in the news lately has been the practice of organ transplants, specifically in the case of children and teens.
Not long ago there were two cases where children age 12 or younger were allowed by court order to be placed on “adult” lists for transplants. The rule about having 2 lists for organ needs is logical and biologically necessary. Children are still growing and do not have the size, capacity or internal space to receive adult organs, as in reverse, adults require organs that have finished developing and growing and are capable of sustaining adult life. These guidelines are rational, logical, and medically relevant to the acceptance of the new organ in the patient’s body.
The conflict arises when the patient is in the gray area of being on the border of the child adult division. It is hard for the family when it is their loved one that is in need. When in this situation emotions become the primary driving force, sometimes at the expense of logic or reason or quality of the patient. In the two cases previously mentioned the families used the courts to impose their will on the medical establishment to move their children to the adult lists to increase their chances of receiving the much needed organs.
It would seem that having to go to court to allow examination and compromise within the individual cases is overkill. But this is a simple example of control combined with compliance instead of independent thinking and assessment by those members of the medical team that are closest to the situation and also the most informed. We can thank this issue on the insurance industry, but that is a whole other article.
Now we have another case in the news where a young man, 15 years old, was originally denied addition to the transplant list “due to his failure to comply” previously. Another words, he was not deemed acceptable to allow to grow into a full grown man, cause the “board” that makes the decisions for this Georgia Hospital, tells the future and knows what a person will become if allowed to live. This is a prime example of what is wrong with a lot of parts of society.
This is not a race issue, this is a human issue. We have limited our value to numbers and bottom lines and profit margins and investment returns as we can put dollar signs on them. We have lost the knowledge that a person’s ideas or thoughts or actions or words are not just profit margins they are gifts to the whole world, their impact cannot be measured or logged in a ledger. We do not know what impact saying hello or shaking a hand or holding a door open or smiling at someone can have. The ripples of the smallest pebble will reach all shores of the ocean.