Zero Per Cent Chance Of Truth

“Investigating fraud in sports — which is a multi-billion-dollar business today — is apparently safer than writing about the weather”

Nothing in life is one sided or one faceted. Nothing has one truth and one “right” side. Everything has multiple sides and facets and is complex. No, profession as a whole is made up of all highly intelligent people. Science does NOT require a certain level of intelligence to excel. An average or below average intelligence with focus, persistence, and hard work can attain a position of expertise in a field of science. Having a position of authority, especial within government does not guarantee wisdom, understanding, or intelligence. The problem arises when persons in those positions of power convince the masses that they are more than what they really are and abuse their positions out of greed and ego based on being more than they are.

One area in which this corruption is most notable is in the field of climatology and the dogma of climate change. First, lets make some things crystal clear:

Climate Protests

* One, climate and weather are not the same thing.

* Two, climate is ALWAYS in change. No “climate denier” denies that, but some climate alarmists do.

* Three, the Earth has been hotter, significantly hotter than now and life lived through it. Some can argue that life, in fact, thrived through it. According, to paleo experts there were times when there were more species of plants and animals than are presently believed to be on Earth today and those were during the “hotter than today” times.

* Four, according to historic evidence from various different sources (written, ice cores, tree rings, ocean core samples, etc.) a cyclonic pattern can be discerned. Matter of fact several different cycles, smaller ones within larger ones, can be identified going back eons. And most of what is being blamed on “post-industrialization CO2 pollutions” could also fit just as nicely, sometimes even more so, into the known cycles.

It seems that a couple things have happened. People have forgotten “that everything that glitters is not gold.” And for all the known wrongs committed by all governments and more all the immoral and illegal acts of members of government, for whatever unknown reason, people will blindly follow these same untrustworthy organizations with these same untrustworthy people blindly in the worst of times.

Add in that the press is no longer a watchdog of government and big business. There is little to no push back or questioning of the science or government policies, nor any accounting of the costs of such policies. The press is no longer even superficially unbiased, they have an agenda and they relentlessly push it to the point of slander and libel of individuals and organizations that they see as “the opposition”.

In the work A Guide to the Climate Apocalypse Our Journey from the Age of Prosperity to the Era of Environmental Grief by  Vítězslav Kremlík you can follow the dramatic change in science and the press over the last 50ish years that has brought us to such heated and politicized attacks. While not the primary focus of the book, Kremlik shows how the climate change movement is not inline with or truly part of environmentalism and the conservation movement, in fact their agenda destroys the environment and thus will increase any impact that humans have on increased pollutions in the air and subsequent warming that may or may not be triggered. Since science truly does not know what continued “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere will create, a second Venus or the next glacial maximum all this “solving the problem” is not fixing anything.

What Kremlik does best in his work is show that when added up there are more experts that disagree with the dogma than support the dogma. He also shows just how political the “science” has gotten. All the layperson has to do is follow the money, or to think about this, if finding “how much man is screwing up the climate” and “how to fix it” is what pays your bills are you going to tell your boss that man isn’t screwing up the climate or that there is no way to “fix it” ? Not if you want to keep your job and your status.

What A Guide to the Climate Apocalypse also shows is how brutal the “Climate Gods” and their advocates are to anyone who even hesitates to fall in line with the adherents. There is a very scary undercurrent of the Climate Dogma and Policy Dictates that has truly questionable intent. Unfortunately, most people do not look into who runs some of the most popular environmental movements such as Greenpeace and WWF. Or even know the foundation missions of the largest funders of NGOs and non-profits.

How can a government funded “NGO” watchdog group independently critique the government policies and actions? How can scientists practice honest science when serving political bodies with political agendas? How can the public trust the policies and actions when all the lines are blurred? And Kremlik shows just how blurred the lines are and how muddy the water is.

This work is very fact based and not softened with nice or funny anecdotes, but it is not a long read. The book is under 300 pages of text with over 50 of references to fact check on your own if you would like. There are some quotes that read very roughly, I do not know if that is due to accuracy of quotes from speaking interactions or bad translations or bad editing, it is not prevalent throughout the book but it does happen several times. Regardless, this is a book that should be read by all.

*Copy Received For Review.

**Cover via

What’s happened with Science!

For years, and everyday in the last year, we have been being told to “Follow The Science!” In this last year the line has been that all the government measures have been ONLY following the science and or experts (read scientists). But, where did all this blind zealot faith in science come from? The foundation of science was not blind faith but ever present skepticism. However, the tower of science has become blind obedience with absolutely NO boat rocking. I have written on this shift previously, so I will try to not repeat myself, at least too much here, since this is more about someone else’s argument against scientism, specifically, material scientism.


I have long questioned the absoluteness of DNA, largely because if you do read the reports about the breakthroughs you can see holes so large that jumbo jets can be flown through them. Primary to me is how small the samplings are to “prove” a DNA trait, not to mention that the sample populations cannot be determined to be pure to begin with. Add to this the zealot dogma of science as being all-knowing and scientists as being infallible deities. The cult of science can be likened to Middle Age Catholicism in which neither the Church, nor her ‘holy men’ could be questioned or challenged.

Christopher points out that even in their labs they have tunnel vision, forget looking at the whole world with open eyes. This inability to even allow questions that might have physical, tangible, answers to exist and to crucify any one displaying such blatant impropriety has limited and distorted our understanding and knowledge of all things. Christopher points out that science has become a religion of materialism that only the physical attributes have value and, so much so in fact, that they are the only value.

We are being feed lines by the experts about everything about us and regarding us is “in the DNA”. The problem is that the research consistently fails to support that absolute and yet science still beats that drum so loudly as to drowned out anyone pointing that out or questioning it. Ironically, we used to consider those that could not understand the things that they could not see for themselves to be ignorant, currently we do not question those that will not attempt to understand anything they cannot see in their petri dishes.

Christopher presents valid arguments against the scientism of today. The work can be a challenging read, especially considering the author’s abusive love of the apostrophes. You will come across sentences that you have to decipher. Here’s your key….if the ‘s blows your mind, drop it and or add in ‘has’, that should make those sentences readable. In spite of the proof errors the information is worth the time.

*Copy Received For Review.

Bright Greens Apocalypse

Bright green lies

Many years ago there was an environmental movement. It began long before anyone knew Al Gore or Gretta and it was full grown before carbon footprint consciousness was trendy or cool. These activists that were screaming about every single creature lost and every blade of grass turned into concrete seemed about as extreme and crazy as anyone could be. Most were considered left over hippies with a new cause. In those long ago days, they were also treated like any extreme fanatical crazy would be treated. They were demeaned, arrested, sued and denounced by their opponents and they were mostly ignored or laughed at by the regular people.

The sad thing is that now we know that they really were onto something. It can be a really hard thing for someone who is busting their ass to pay the bills and maybe get just ahead enough to have some comfort to find the time, energy, and or motivation to give a damn about some disaster to the planet and nature half a world away. It is a challenging thing to understand that what happens in some remote mountain village in Asia or South American can have profound and direct impact on your life and or your way of life. Heck, it is even hard to care about what happens in places like Love Canal, New York or Picher, Oklahoma or any of the other more than 1300 Superfund Toxic Sties in the United States. The problem is that like a cancer in the body, if you do not care about what happens because the cancer is not somewhere important, by the time it spreads to somewhere important it will be too late to stop it. The same holds true with industrial practices that destroy the planet wherever they go. They strip out every usable resource and squeeze every bit of profit and then leave a permanent scar and move on to the next site with resources to strip bare and they will continue to do so as long as there is a profit to be made. No location on the planet is safe from their greed.

Even if you are proactive, unlike the cancer patient above, and go to the doctor and get the tumor removed; but now you have not a life but an existence scheduled around chemo treatments and down days and check-ups and tests and more down days you get a cure that is more damaging and destructive than the original tumor (depending on your priorities and definitions). There is NO perfect solution to ANY problem. That is part of the challenge of life, solving problems the best way possible and then dealing with not only the known or foreseen side effects but more importantly recognizing and understanding and learning from the unintended and unforeseen side effects. And there are ALWAYS unintended and unforeseen side effects. How do we make the best choices and decisions and pick the best solutions to the most daunting problems facing us? Hopefully, we use our minds, our intelligence and creativity, our morals, our sense of fairness and right over wrong, our hearts, our compassion and our humanity. Most importantly, we have to have clear worthy goals and be willing to make hard choices to reach those worthy goals and live with those solutions.

In the environmental movement this is not what happened. Instead, the movement was usurped by opportunists that could see a whole profitable movement sweep the world. Enter the age of the trendy, shiny, and very cool Bright Greens. They took the 3 R’s of the Green Movement and reduced them to the 1 that would be inline with profit margins and consumerism. Well done Corporate America and Corporate World. The original 3 R’s were to reduce the amount of waste that one created, presumably by reducing the amount of things that one threw out by reducing the amount of consumption and or being aware of the waste from each purchase or product, to reuse or repurpose those things that no longer worked in their original role, but could serve another purpose which would in essence also reduce, and the surviving R, recycle, the R that could be made into profit for the corporate world.

Most people today, consider themselves to be environmentally concerned citizens, but when you strip away all the marketing and trending hashtags, do you know just how you stack up in your roll of Steward Of The Planet? You might think that you are doing your best, buying products that are “organically” grown and packaged in recyclable packaging. Donating to the right causes. Voting for the right candidates. Supporting the right parties. But are you still buying the latest iPhone, every release date and remote working from your favorite coffee shop on your Mac Pro? Going home and still binging Netflix most nights while you order take out Sushi or pho delivered by your Uber Eats, Door Dash guy in his electric Mini, your water from bottles, cause tap water, GROSS! You have sworn off meat cause cow farts are second behind humans for causing CO2 emissions. You’ve gone vegan cause all the pretty people are and science proves we are herd animals so we should be eating plants and fake things.

However, there is a kink in your movement! It is built on a foundation of half-truths with walls of lies surrounding delusions of a Happily Ever After that cannot be. For every scientific study that proves one of the Bright Greens slogans there is at least one that disproves and more that find flaws with it. No this is not an article to bash lifestyles or living choices, but to ask you to make them with your eyes wide open and to engage in preferred behavior understanding all the implications. How do you do that, you ask.


Pick up or order the new work Bright Green Lies by Derrick Jensen, Lierre Keith, and Max Wilbert. I recently received a copy of the book and wow. First, it is a long read, but it is worth it, so stick it out if you really care about Planet Earth. Second, if you read it with an open mind and with the intention of learning and understanding it is full of information, a lot of it stuff that we really truly should know, but we do not think about and some that we might have had some idea about but not the full and complete implications. To keep things balanced, the authors are original, dyed in the wool environmentalists, not the chic, trendy brand influencers of social media. So while a lot of their suggestions for solving the problem might seem out there and or crazy extreme, they, themselves, are aware that most of us cannot be that committed and or dedicated. And in that regard they show their humanness by openly sharing their short comings in reaching the ultimate goals that they layout. That being said, most of us can be more intentional and more aware and make better informed decisions about how we live our lives and how we spend our money and how we focus our lives.

While the book addresses most of the impacts of today’s most common way of life and supports their arguments regarding the pros and cons of all the popular trendy solutions, they also provide references to a multitude of other sources for you to research for yourself. Another words, unlike the politicians and CEOs and even popular activists their stance is not “take our word for it” but go do your own research and make up your own mind. To get your started I have included a couple links in the article that are short reads and barely scratch the surface of existing damage. Or you could continue letting industry lead the way to solving any environmental problems, most of their own making while claiming that they care.

I can honestly say that I will never live up to the goals of the book. However, having hard numbers and even theorized numbers from ‘expert’ solutions spelled out has brought details that I knew superficially into much better focus. The result is that I want to strive to live a much more intentional life and make more intentional choices in every aspect of my life. Most importantly, I want to be able to live with my choices, because I make them as informed as I can be. Will all my choices be perfect, no, they will not, but, it is my goal that they will be the best choices that causes the least negative impact all the way around. And that in my opinion is a very good start.

For your sake, for my sake, for the sake of your loved ones, for the sake of strangers read Bright Green Lies and make up your own mind, based on the research and not the trending hashtags.

*Copy Received For Review.

Book Review – Thinking Like a Geographer By Rebecca M. Burley

Thinking Like A Geographer Cover BurleyWell, this work was not at all what I was expecting or hoping for. What was I expecting/hoping for? More of a conceptual methodology of the thinking skills that are needed or are useful in the study of Geography that can be applied not just within lessons focused on geography, but also other areas to increase the students analysis skills and critical thinking.

What this book is … basically it is a complete package lesson plan for geography/social studies for the elementary level. While the book states Grade 2, I would say that it could be applied up to Grade 5 depending on the social and academic level of the students. I also feel that some of the exercises would not be emotionally and thus in turn not intellectually relevant to 7/8YOs and might be better suited for older students.

As a complete lesson plan package, the book is sufficient to provide basically a whole geography component of the class curriculum for the year. The teacher is provided with the worksheets, project assignments and lecture content. Included are even examples of appropriate ‘right answers’ from the students to questions presented within the lectures.

*Copy Received For Review.

Newly Discovered Recent Impact Crater In Greenland

Map with insert Greenland
Map via Gizmodo Australia
University of Kansas

About 10 years ago a group of researchers from various fields proposed a theory. This theory set out to explain the onset of the Younger Dryas (YD) episode of our current interglacial period. Their theory proposed a huge impact event as the trigger for the YD episode. Their comprehensive claims included a 4km wide impact object, massive continent wide wild fires across the Northern Hemisphere, and extensive global flooding. Of course their evidence was ruthlessly debunked by their critics, most of which was valid due to the extravagance of their claims. (4)

Before and since the question of what caused the Younger Dryas episode has remained largely unanswered. Since the end of the last Ice Age (~3 – 2.5 million YAG) climatologists have concluded that the Earth has experienced approximately 25 brief cooling periods or cycles, referred to as Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) events. One argument of critics against any impact triggering theory is that they consider the Younger Dryas as nothing more than another one of the D-O cycles. This is in spite of the fact that known and accepted data singles out the Younger Drays as the most significant climate period in recent history, up to our own time. The Younger Dryas returned climate to almost ice age norms, with average global temps dropping 8ᵒC. The extreme of the Younger Dryas from climatological norms implies that there is more to the story than just another D-O cyclonic event.

Diagram of Current Hiawatha Crater
The Ice Layers over the suspected impact crater.
Graphic: C. Bikel/Science via

Fast-forward to 3 years ago, when researchers from University of Copenhagen noticed an anomaly about 19 miles wide and 1000ft deep on images from NASA’s Operation Icebridge. (1) They wondered if it might be a 31km wide crater, that could have been created when an iron object up to 1.5km wide slammed into Greenland within recent history, geologically speaking.(4) The last 3 years have been spent seeking the cause of the anomaly. This was done using a more specialized German research plane equipped with special radar, as well as, putting boots on the ground to make field observations and collect runoff samples.(1)

So what did their 3 years of subsequent research yield?

The ice is perfectly layered over the past 11,700 years, then it becomes disturbed during a range consistent with the Younger Dryas period. The collected samples contained “shocked quartz” and ‘glass’ that was forged at temps higher than those found in volcanic activity.(4) The collected “shocked quartz” samples’ profiles identified an enrichment of rhodium and palladium along with a depletion of platinum, usually associated with impacts of unique iron objects. The signatures are similar to the iron meteorite fragments previously recovered from various locations in the region, collectively known as the Cape York fragments, which are dated to 10,000 YAG.(2)

The Cape York fragments include “Agpalilik” (Inuit for “the man”) a 20 ton piece of iron meteorite on display in the courtyard of the National Museum of Natural History in Copenhagen. The American Natural History Museum states their “Ahnighto” fragment, which is 34 tons, and also part of the Cape York impact, struck Earth approximately 10,000 YAG. Their display information goes on to state that the piece was either a break away part of a larger object or part of a collection of multiple objects impacting simultaneously.

Ahnighito Meteorite Fragment Amer Nat His Mus
“Ahnighto” fragment via ANHM website.

In addition, the German research plane, collected images from their specialized radar that can penetrate ice sheets and map the terrain beneath. The images were studied and revealed the probable existence of a circular formation with 1000ft rim and central upwellings in the floor suggesting the anomaly being the result of an impact event.(1)

From the above data, the logical theory suggests that a significant object between 1/2 and 1 mile across impacted Greenland within the last 100,00 years  releasing 700megatons of energy and creating the Hiawatha crater. (1,4)

“The impact would have been a spectacle for anyone within 500 kilometers. A white fireball four times larger and three times brighter than the Sun would have streaked across the sky. If the object struck an ice sheet, it would have tunneled through to the bedrock, vaporizing water and stone alike in a flash. The resulting explosion packed the energy of 700 1-megaton nuclear warheads, and even an observer hundreds of kilometers away would have experienced a buffeting shock wave, a monstrous thunder-clap, and hurricane-force winds. Later, rock debris might have rained down on North America and Europe, and the released steam, a greenhouse gas, could have locally warmed Greenland, melting even more ice.” (4)

Due to the nature of glacial ice the logical conclusion would be that the impact would have to date closer to 12,000 YAG than to the 3million year mark. “The crater is exceptionally well-preserved, and that is surprising, because glacier ice is an incredibly efficient erosive agent that would have quickly removed traces of the impact,” Kurt H Kjær (1)

In addition, in an attempt to disprove the YD Impact Theory, mentioned in the first paragraph, which is connected to the new research out of the University of Copenhagen, that this article focuses on, there was a study of ice core samples in 2013 that did not succeed. This study actually gives indirect supporting evidence to the new research being an impact crater. The 2013 study revealed a similar platinum spike as the crater samples. That being said, ‘significant’ multiple samples have been lacking.(4)

Crater diameter Paris
Paris fits inside the crater. NASA imaging
via Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Consideration should be given to Brandon Johnson, Brown University, who leads research using iSALE model to study the impact event on icy moons and objects. The iSALE model suggests that an impact occurring when the ice is 1.5 ~ 2km thick would significantly inhibit the typical debris eruption showers seen in wholly terrestrial impacts.(4) Thus it could be supposed that the lack of ‘significant’ multiple supporting or confirming ice core samples could be the result of a smaller debris field that while being ice could be vaporized and melted into flash run off carrying the evidence with it into other areas and or dispersing it in unnoticeable remnants in unrelated or non-local areas.

Retired geophysicist, Allen West, explains that an ice sheet impact could result in significant (immediate) climate issues. These could include increased rainfall due to vaporization and change in ocean temps due to disturbance discharge in the forms of ice cleavage and runoff.(3) In addition, Dr. Mathieu Morlighem (UC-Irvine) explains that impact craters could be hidden under current ice sheets. This possibility would make locating and dating challenging, not to mention that the erosive actions of glacial movement would erase their presence before their discoveries as well.(2)

The new research has many critics, such as Ludovic Ferriere (Natural History Museum in Vienna) who told National Geographic, it could just be a natural depression and he would want ultimate proof in the form of crater floor sediment samples.(1) Similarly, J. Severinghaus, Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, cites lack of supporting evidence in other ice core samples dating to 100,000YAG for doubting the research conclusions stating, “You really ought to see something.”(4) However, just because you do not see something you think you ought to see, does not mean that it does not exist.

Then J. Melosh, Purdue Univeristy, doubts that if the crater is an impact event, that it could be from the 12,000~100,000YAG time range based solely on a statistical belief that large impacts ONLY occur every few millions of years. Melosh goes on to imply that Science‘s reporting on this is reckless, “You’re aware you’re going to set off a firestorm?”(4)

66million YAG an object hit Earth creating the 200km Chicxulub crater; then 35.5million YAG another object struck the Chesapeake Bay area leaving a 85km scar; now there is evidence suggesting that between 100,000 and 12,000YAG a smaller, but still significant object struck Greenland giving us the 31km Hiawatha crater. Based on these stated examples and taking into account the hypothesis that as the Universe has aged the chaos regarding debris impact risks has lessened, the possibility of the accuracy of the Hiawatha impact theory increases to probability.

Once again we see the same problem occurring; when someone makes up their mind that something completely is or isn’t it is virtually impossible to change their opinion, not matter the truth. This trait is especially detrimental to science! The reality is that some even when provided with a preponderance of evidence, in some cases the very evidence that they demanded needed as proof, they will still deny the logical conclusion and demand even more proof. Fulfilling their demands is of course futile as their demands will only become absurd. The tragedy is when these obtuse individuals hold positions of respect and authority (ex. tenure) on such level as to suppress new information from being openly and intelligently discussed and analyzed and judged on its own factual merit alone.

If the Hiawatha impact crater can be accepted by the science community, it would be one of the 25 largest impacts known.(1)


1. @jasondaley608, F. and Daley, J. (2018). Massive Impact Crater Found Under Greenland’s Ice. [online] Smithsonian. Available at: [Accessed 16 Nov. 2018].
2. Amos, J. (2018). Greenland ice hides huge ‘impact crater’. [online] BBC News. Available at: [Accessed 16 Nov. 2018].
3. Groves, A. (2018). Impact crater beneath Greenland could help explain Ice Age. [online] Available at: [Accessed 16 Nov. 2018].
4. Voosen, P. (2018). Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans. [online] Science | AAAS. Available at: [Accessed 16 Nov. 2018].
5. YouTube. (2018). Younger Dryas Impact Crater Discovered in Greenland? | Ancient Architects. [online] Available at: [Accessed 16 Nov. 2018].
6. Kjær, K., Larsen, N., Binder, T., Bjørk, A., Eisen, O., Fahnestock, M., Funder, S., Garde, A., Haack, H., Helm, V., Houmark-Nielsen, M., Kjeldsen, K., Khan, S., Machguth, H., McDonald, I., Morlighem, M., Mouginot, J., Paden, J., Waight, T., Weikusat, C., Willerslev, E. and MacGregor, J. (2018). A large impact crater beneath Hiawatha Glacier in northwest Greenland. [online] Science Advances. Available at: [Accessed 16 Nov. 2018].
7. Johnson, B., Silber, E., Bjonnes, E., Kjaer, K., Wiggins, S., MacGregor, J. and Larsen, N. (2018). Formation of terrestrial craters on thick ice sheets. [online] AGU – AGU Fall Meeting 2018. Available at: [Accessed 18 Nov. 2018].
8. (1963). The Meteoritical Bulletin No 28.. [online] Available at: [Accessed 18 Nov. 2018].
9. (2018). Cape York meteorite. [online] Available at: [Accessed 18 Nov. 2018].

Little Steps Are Still Steps

So this past week, an article appeared in The Guardian making a move away from the completely liner thinking dogma that has imprisoned paleoanthropologists and others in the human evolution field for decades.

Out Of Africa Basic Map

In the past, the theory, stated as fact, was that ALL modern humans evolved from one family group with one mitochondrial Eve. And that most of this evolution has occurred in the last 250,000 to 500,000 YAG, after millions of years basically remaining intelligent apes.

The map is from an article in late 2016 that still promotes that while some of the migration details of other maps are “inaccurate” that this map is the least inaccurate one to date. Even if more than 15 years ago I would have argued that this model is wrong and lacking, without all the research, reading, and study that I have done in the ensuing years up to the present, I cannot grasp how supposedly intelligent students in the various related fields do not use their own logic and reason with rational thought and question all of it. Thus the result from all of this self-study of the question “What and or where are man’s origins?” instead of becoming more certain of the official dogma, I have become certain of one glaring fact – – We Do Not Have A Clue!

human origins tree 1

The first argument the dogma propagandists throw at the rebellious divergent is all the oldest hominid specimens have been found in Africa, East Africa specifically, thus there is no doubt about the origins of homo sapiens sapiens, of course the reality is that academia has focused their search exclusively to East Africa, thus basically eliminating finds in other areas. In light of this dogged determination to stick to their story, there are still finds accidentally stumbled upon in other parts of the world, such as homo floresiensis and homo gigantopithecus, which while labeled as an ape member of the primate family, some researchers claim some possible familiar human behavior and even some possible interbreeding with homo erectus.

Other bumps in the official dogmatic linear evolution process that originally had offshoots of our evolution process just dying off, cause they were not as adaptable, intelligent or modern as we are, are being proven incorrect. It has been proven that while geneticists label the majority of human genome as junk DNA (translate as they don’t have a clue), in the parts that they have figured out, they have admitted that significant groups of the modern population have at least 3% Neanderthal DNA (Homo neanderthalensis) and that others also have at least as much Denisovan DNA (Homo sapiens denisova) within their gene pools.

Thus, while there is still a very long way to go in the halls of academia before even seeing the truth on the horizon, the step forward that now allows modern humans to have originated in multiple places in Africa is a step closer to greater knowledge and understanding of our past and our history. With new knowledge, new finds, and the possible acceptance of accessing existing finds with more interest and less hostility, we might once again be moving forward in our search for the origins of our species.


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…..