ED CONRAD MAY OPEN WORLD NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM.
Ed Conrad
<
This may be extremely hard for evolutionists to accept
-- or comprehend -- but the plain simple fact is that there
isn't a shred of physical evidence confirming evolution.
<
Zilch!
<
How the Scientific Establishment could have gotten away
with such a con job for many decades boggles the mind,
and reveals how only a combination of deceit, deception,
collusion and conspiracy has enabled it to surive this long.
<
Of course, it's the result of folks under the umbrella of the
Scientific Establishment not being concerned about the pursuit
of truth but much more concerned about not making waves
in order to protect their vested interests.
<
It must be understood, however, that the evolutionists have
the backing of the major media who also have vested interests
which they must protect.
<
This explains why my discoveries of petrified bones, teeth and
soft organs (some human) plus a hand carved handle for a weapon
or tool -- turned to anthracite -- are receiving no coverage
whatsoever
by the major newspapers or the major TV networks.
<
They fear, to provide worldwide publicity, will show the evolutionists
for the con men that they area and the evolution of man for the farce
that it is.
<
Need I point out that, all by my lonesome, I have accumulated more
physical evidence of man's existence during the Carboniferous Period
(a minimum of 280 million years ago) than all of the world's Natural
Hiistory museums put together.
<
=================================================
<
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/1tooth.jpg
<
THIS IS A GIANT PETRIFIED MAMMALIAN CANINE TOOTH DISCOVERED
BETWEEN COAL VEINS in Pennsylvania's anthracite region in strata
geologically dated at a minimum of 280 million years.
<
The photo speaks for itself and confirms, beyond the shadow of a
doubt the impossibility of the Scientific Establishment theory that
large
land animals did NOT exist on earth until eons later.
<
These discoveries were made, using coal mining maps, over the past
25 years despite incredible opposition and foul play -- deceit,
deception, collusion and conspiracy -- by the scientific community.
<
Might I also mention that I had submitted a friend-of-court brief in
the recent Dover Area School Board evolution vs. Intelligent Design
court case in Harrisburg, Pa., but it apparently was ignored.
<
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/fossil/MVC-020F.JPG
<
BELOW ARE A FEW OTHER INCREDIBLE SPECIMENS OF BONES,
TEETH AND EVEN SOFT ORGANS (SOME HUMAN) that also were found
between anthracite veins near Mahanoy City, Shenandoah, Hazleton and
Wlkes-Barre.
<
All were recently returned from two international months-long
exhibitions -- one in Switzerland, the other in Berlin, Germany -- and
future ones planned in Japan and Las Vegas, most likely at a major
casino.
<
Additional information about these fossils, which falsify several
long-held paradigms of science, can be found at
http://www.edconrad.com which already has had more than 209,000 hits.
<
Please note that what you see has taken 25 years of hard work and
perseverance despite incredible ridicule and opposition by the
evolutionists and no coverage whatsoever from AP, UPI, Reuters,
CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, The New York Times
and Washington Post, to mention just a few.
<
It appears obvious these specimens are evidence of a earthshaking
catastrophe that blew man and animals from limb to limb during the
time that coal was being formed.
>
PETRIFIED HUMAN SKULL EMBEDDED IN A BOULDER
>
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/skullb.jpg
>
ANOTHER PETRIFIED HUMAN SKULL ( WITH EYESOCKETS BROKEN OFF)
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith/z11calv.jpg
<
WORLD FAMOUS BONE EXPERT WILTON KROGMAN CONFIRMED IT TO BE HUMAN
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/FOSSILS/krogwskull.jpg
<
PETRIFIED HUMAN FINGERS (OR A FINGER AND A TOE)
<
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Fossils/FINGERS11.jpg
<
SHOWN DURING EXHIBIT AT MYSTERY PARK IN SWITZERLAND
<
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Newpix2/MVC-006S.JPG
>
=======================================================
=======================================================
<
> OTHER PETRIFIED SPECIMENS DISCOVERED BETWEEN COAL VEINS
<
PORTION OF A PETRIFIED TIBIA
>
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/newtibia.jpg
>
PETRIFIED HUMAN FRONTAL MANDIBLE
<
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrifiedx/MVC-002S.JPG
>
ED CONRAD DISPLAYS PORTION OF A HUMAN MANDIBLE
>
http://www.edconrad.com/images/zedjaw.jpg
<
HANDCARVED HANDLE FOR TOOL OR WEAPON THAT HAS TURNED TO COAL
<
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/FOSSILS/MVC-009F.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Tool/MVC-002S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Tool/MVC-003S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Tool/MVC-004S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Tool/MVC-005S.JPG
<
GGGGGGGGGGGREAT-GRANDPA'S MOST IMPORTANT 'TOOL'?
<
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/pp/MVC-022S.JPG
<
PORTION OF A PETRIFIED GALL BLADDER (CATscan shows gall bladder
inside)
<
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/z5gall.jpg
<
PETRIFIED HUMAN LUNG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Petrified/z9lung.jpg
<
ONE HEMISPHERE OF A PETRIFIED HUMAN BRAIN
<
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/brain/MVC-001S.JPG
>
PETRIFIED MOLAR TOOTH
<
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/ID/premolar.jpg
>
PORTION OF A DINOSAUR FOOT (embedded in coal strata)
<
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Newpix3/z3dino.jpg
<
PAIR OF GIANT PETRIFIED FETUSES (one embedded in slate)
<
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/ID/MVC-013F.JPG
<
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Day/MVC-002S.JPG
<
PETRIFIED BONE EMBEDDED IN COAL-BEARING STRATA
<
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/ID\MVC-017S.JPG
>
SEVERAL SPECIMENS OF PETRIFIED BONE EMBEDDED IN ROCK
<
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/FossilsinRock/MVC-007S.JPG
<
PORTION OF A GIANT PREHISTORIC SCORPION
<
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Scorpion/MVC-010S.JPG
<
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Scorpion/MVC-020S.JPG
>
MYSTERIOUS FOSSIL EMBEDDED IN SLATE, NEAR-COUSIN TO COAL
<
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/coalbones/inslate_mysterious.jpg
<
TWO SPECIMENS OF LEPIDODENDRON, BARK OF A COAL-AGE TREE
(Confirming Carboniferous age of specimens found with them)
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Newpix5/MVC-006S.JPG
<
=================================================
==================================================
<
> SOME FAVORABLE STATE-OF-THE-ART SCIENTIFIC TESTING
<
YERKES REGIONAL PRIMATE RESEARCH INSTITUTE
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/Smith1/MVC-008S.JPG
>
AMERICAN MEDICAL LABORATORIES (Chantilly, Va.)
<
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/ID\MVC-024S.JPG
http://www.edconrad.com/ebay/ID\MVC-002S.JPG
<
"CALCULUS BY CRYSTALLOGRAPHY" ON PETRIFIED PREMOLAR
<
http://www.edconrad.com/oldascoal/images/graph.gif
<
http://www.edconrad.com/oldascoal/images/result.gif
<
CATSCAN OF CALVARIUM (PORTION OF A HUMAN SKULL)
http://www.edconrad.com/images/catcalv.jpg
>
SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPY (SEM) ON PETRIFIED TIBIA
<
http://www.edconrad.com/canals/sem.jpg
<
PRESENCE OF HAVERIAN CANALS (PHOTO OF INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF TIBIA)
http://www.edconrad.com/oldascoal/images/proof1.jpg
<
Ed Conrad
> http://www.edconrad.com
<
< Man as Old as Coal
<
===============================
<
> THE 50 MOST GENEROUS PHILANTHROPISTS OF 2004
President Bush (using taxp[ayers' money)
Gordon and Betty Moore
Bill and Melinda Gates
Warren Buffett
George Soros
Eli and Edythe Broad
James and Virginia Stowers
Walton Family
Alfred Mann
Michael and Susan Dell
George Kaiser
John Templeton
Ruth Lilly
Michael Bloomberg
Veronica Atkins
Jeff Skoll
Ted Turner
Kirk Kerkorian
Donald Bren
Pierre and Pam Omidyar
Patrick and Lore Harp McGovern
Sidney Kimmel
Irwin and Joan Jacobs
Bernard Marcus
Robert Meyerhoff
Paul Allen
Thomas Monaghan
>
Quintal
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 12:17:04 GMT, Ed Conrad <edco...@verizon.net>
wrote:
>This may be extremely hard for evolutionists to accept
>-- or comprehend -- but the plain simple fact is that there
>isn't a shred of physical evidence confirming evolution.
><
>Zilch!
hello Ed, I read about a book titled "Forbidden Archaeology".
There seems to be many more strange findings than your human bones in
coal. A footprint of 5 million years ago (and from a shoe!).
Manufactured spheres of 2.8 millions years ago. And so on. Fun stuff.
No wonder we dont hear about it. Each community, like the scientific
one, acts as a buffer delivering to the public only what the
corporations want them to hear about. The rest is hushed.
Frankly, wouldnt this make a great subject for a tv documentary? I
havent heard of any. Keep the sheople in line I suppose.
http://www.mcremo.com/chapter.html
Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race
By Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson
Sample Chapter
INTRODUCTION AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In 1979, researchers at the Laetoli, Tanzania, site in East Africa
discovered footprints in volcanic ash deposits over 3.6 million years
old. Mary Leakey and others said the prints were indistinguishable
from those of modern humans. To these scientists, this meant only that
the human ancestors of 3.6 million years ago had remarkably modern
feet. But according to other scientists, such as physical
anthropologist R. H. Tuttle of the University of Chicago, fossil bones
of the known australopithecines of 3.6 million years ago show they had
feet that were distinctly apelike. Hence they were incompatible with
the Laetoli prints. In an article in the March 1990 issue of Natural
History, Tuttle confessed that "we are left with somewhat of a
mystery." It seems permissible, therefore, to consider a possibility
neither Tuttle nor Leakey mentioned--that creatures with anatomically
modern human bodies to match their anatomically modern human feet
existed some 3.6 million years ago in East Africa. Perhaps, as
suggested in the illustration on the opposite page, they coexisted
with more apelike creatures. As intriguing as this archeological
possibility may be, current ideas about human evolution forbid it.
Knowledgeable persons will warn against positing the existence of
anatomically modern humans millions of years ago on the slim basis of
the Laetoli footprints. But there is further evidence. Over the past
few decades, scientists in Africa have uncovered fossil bones that
look remarkably human. In 1965, Bryan Patterson and W. W. Howells
found a surprisingly modern humerus (upper arm bone) at Kanapoi,
Kenya. Scientists judged the humerus to be over 4 million years old.
Henry M. McHenry and Robert S. Corruccini of the University of
California said the Kanapoi humerus was "barely distinguishable from
modern Homo." Similarly, Richard Leakey said the ER 1481 femur
(thighbone) from Lake Turkana, Kenya, found in 1972, was
indistinguishable from that of modern humans. Scientists normally
assign the ER 1481 femur, which is about 2 million years old, to
prehuman Homo habilis. But since the ER 1481 femur was found by
itself, one cannot rule out the possibility that the rest of the
skeleton was also anatomically modern. Interestingly enough, in 1913
the German scientist Hans Reck found at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania, a
complete anatomically modern human skeleton in strata over 1 million
years old, inspiring decades of controversy.
Here again, some will caution us not to set a few isolated and
controversial examples against the overwhelming amount of
noncontroversial evidence showing that anatomically modern humans
evolved from more apelike creatures fairly recently--about 100,000
years ago, in Africa, and, in the view of some, in other parts of the
world as well.
But it turns out we have not exhausted our resources with the Laetoli
footprints, the Kanapoi humerus, and the ER 1481 femur. Over the past
eight years, Richard Thompson and I, with the assistance of our
researcher have amassed an extensive body of evidence that calls into
question current theories of human evolution. Some of this evidence,
like the Laetoli footprints, is fairly recent. But much of it was
reported by scientists in the nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries. And as you can see, our discussion of this evidence fills
up quite a large book.
Without even looking at this older body of evidence, some will assume
that there must be something wrong with it--that it was properly
disposed of by scientists long ago, for very good reasons. Richard and
I have looked rather deeply into that possibility. We have concluded,
however, that the quality of this controversial evidence is no better
or worse than the supposedly noncontroversial evidence usually cited
in favor of current views about human evolution.
But Forbidden Archeology is more than a well-documented catalog of
unusual facts. It is also a sociological, philosophical, and
historical critique of the scientific method, as applied to the
question of human origins and antiquity.
We are not sociologists, but our approach in some ways resembles that
taken by practitioners of the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK),
such as Steve Woolgar, Trevor Pinch, Michael Mulkay, Harry Collins,
Bruno Latour, and Michael Lynch.
Each of these scholars has a unique perspective on SSK, but they would
all probably agree with the following programmatic statement.
Scientists' conclusions do not identically correspond to states and
processes of an objective natural reality. Instead, such conclusions
reflect the real social processes of scientists as much as, more than,
or even rather than what goes on in nature.
The critical approach we take in Forbidden Archeology also resembles
that taken by philosophers of science such as Paul Feyerabend, who
holds that science has attained too privileged a position in the
intellectual field, and by historians of science such as J. S.
Rudwick, who has explored in detail the nature of scientific
controversy. As does Rudwick in The Great Devonian Controversy, we use
narrative to present our material, which encompasses not one
controversy but many controversies--controversies long resolved,
controversies as yet unresolved, and controversies now in the making.
This has necessitated extensive quoting from primary and secondary
sources, and giving rather detailed accounts of the twists and turns
of complex paleoanthropological debates.
For those working in disciplines connected with human origins and
antiquity, Forbidden Archeology provides a well-documented compendium
of reports absent from many current references and not otherwise
easily obtainable.
One of the last authors to discuss the kind of reports found in
Forbidden Archeology was Marcellin Boule. In his book Fossil Men
(1957), Boule gave a decidedly negative review. But upon examining the
original reports, we found Boule's total skepticism unjustified. In
Forbidden Archeology, we provide primary source material that will
allow modern readers to form their own opinions about the evidence
Boule dismissed. We also introduce a great many cases that Boule
neglected to mention.
From the evidence we have gathered, we conclude, sometimes in language
devoid of ritual tentativeness, that the now-dominant assumptions
about human origins are in need of drastic revision. We also find that
a process of knowledge filtration has left current workers with a
radically incomplete collection of facts.
We anticipate that many workers will take Forbidden Archeology as an
invitation to productive discourse on (1) the nature and treatment of
evidence in the field of human origins and (2) the conclusions that
can most reasonably drawn from this evidence.
In the first chapter of Part I of Forbidden Archeology, we survey the
history and current state of scientific ideas about human evolution.
We also discuss some of the epistemological principles we employ in
our study of this field. Principally, we are concerned with a double
standard in the treatment of evidence.
We identify two main bodies of evidence. The first is a body of
controversial evidence (A), which shows the existence of anatomically
modern humans in the uncomfortably distant past. The second is a body
of evidence (B), which can be interpreted as supporting the currently
dominant views that anatomically modern humans evolved fairly
recently, about 100,000 years ago in Africa, and perhaps elsewhere.
We also identify standards employed in the evaluation of
paleoanthropological evidence. After detailed study, we found that if
these standards are applied equally to A and B, then we must accept
both A and B or reject both A and B. If we accept both A and B, then
we have evidence placing anatomically modern humans millions of years
ago, coexisting with more apelike hominids. If we reject both A and B,
then we deprive ourselves of the evidential foundation for making any
pronouncements whatsoever about human origins and antiquity.
Historically, a significant number of professional scientists once
accepted the evidence in category A. But a more influential group of
scientists, who applied standards of evidence more strictly to A than
to B, later caused A to be rejected and B to be preserved. This
differential application of standards for the acceptance and rejection
of evidence constitutes a knowledge filter that obscures the real
picture of human origins and antiquity.
In the main body of Part I (Chapters 2-6), we look closely at the vast
amount of controversial evidence that contradicts current ideas about
human evolution. We recount in detail how this evidence has been
systematically suppressed, ignored, or forgotten, even though it is
qualitatively (and quantitatively) equivalent to evidence favoring
currently accepted views on human origins. When we speak of
suppression of evidence, we are not referring to scientific
conspirators carrying out a satanic plot to deceive the public.
Instead, we are talking about an ongoing social process of knowledge
filtration that appears quite innocuous but has a substantial
cumulative effect. Certain categories of evidence simply disappear
from view, in our opinion unjustifiably.
Chapter 2 deals with anomalously old bones and shells showing cut
marks and signs of intentional breakage. To this day, scientists
regard such bones and shells as an important category of evidence, and
many archeological sites have been established on this kind of
evidence alone.
In the decades after Darwin introduced his theory, numerous scientists
discovered incised and broken animal bones and shells suggesting that
tool-using humans or human precursors existed in the Pliocene (2-5
million years ago), the Miocene (5-25 million years ago), and even
earlier. In analyzing cut and broken bones and shells, the discoverers
carefully considered and ruled out alternative explanations--such as
the action of animals or geological pressure--before concluding that
humans were
responsible. In some cases, stone tools were found along with the cut
and broken bones or shells.
A particularly striking example in this category is a shell displaying
a crude yet recognizably human face carved on its outer surface.
Reported by geologist H. Stopes to the British Association for the
Advancement of Science in 1881, this shell, from the Pliocene Red Crag
formation in England, is over 2 million years old. According to
standard views, humans capable of this level of artistry did not
arrive in Europe until about 30,000 or 40,000 years ago. Furthermore,
they supposedly did not arise in
their African homeland until about 100,000 years ago.
Concerning evidence of the kind reported by Stopes, Armand de
Quatrefages wrote in his book Hommes Fossiles et Hommes Sauvages
(1884): "The objections made to the existence of man in the Pliocene
and Miocene seem to habitually be more related to theoretical
considerations than direct observation."
The most rudimentary stone tools, the eoliths ("dawn stones") are the
subject of Chapter 3. These imlements, found in unexpectedly old
geological contexts, inspired protracted debate in the late nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries.
For some, eoliths were not always easily recognizable as tools.
Eoliths were not shaped into symmetrical implemental forms. Instead,
an edge of a natural stone flake was chipped to make it suitable for a
particular task, such as scraping, cutting, or chopping. Often, the
working edge bore signs of use.
Critics said eoliths resulted from natural forces, like tumbling in
stream beds. But defenders of eoliths offered convincing
counterarguments that natural forces could not have made
unidirectional chipping on just one side of a working edge.
In the late nineteenth century, Benjamin Harrison, an amateur
archeologist, found eoliths on the Kent Plateau in southeastern
England. Geological evidence suggests that the eoliths were
manufactured in the Middle or Late Pliocene, about 2-4 million ago.
Among the supporters of Harrison's eoliths were Alfred Russell
Wallace, cofounder with Darwin of the theory of
evolution by natural selection; Sir John Prestwich, one of England's
most eminent geologists; and Ray E. Lankester, a director of the
British Museum (Natural History).
Although Harrision found most of his eoliths in surface deposits of
Pliocene gravel, he also found many below ground level during an
excavation financed and directed by the British Association for the
Advancement of Science. In addition to eoliths, Harrison found at
various places on the Kent Plateau more advanced stone tools
(paleoliths) of similar Pliocene antiquity.
In the early part of the twentieth century, J. Reid Moir, a fellow of
the Royal Anthropological Institute and president of the Prehistoric
Society of East Anglia, found eoliths (and more advanced stone tools)
in England's Red Crag formation. The tools were about 2.0-2.5 million
years old. Some of Moir's tools were discovered in the detritus beds
beneath the Red Crag and
could be anywhere from 2.5 to 55 million years old.
Moir's finds won support from one of the most vocal critics of
eoliths, Henri Breuil, then regarded as one of the world's preeminent
authorities on stone tools. Another supporter was paleontologist Henry
Fairfield Osborn, of the American Museum of Natural History in New
York. And in 1923, an international commission of scientists journeyed
to England to investigate
Moir's principal discoveries and pronounced them genuine.
But in 1939, A. S. Barnes published an influential paper, in which he
analyzed the eoliths found by Moir and others in terms of the angle of
flaking observed on them. Barnes claimed his method could distinguish
human flaking from flaking by natural causes. On this basis, he
dismissed all the eoliths he studied, including Moir's, as the product
of natural forces. Since then, scientists have used Barnes's method
to deny the human manufacture of other stone tool industries. But in
recent years,
authorities on stone tools such as George F. Carter, Leland W.
Patterson, and A. L. Bryan have disputed Barnes's methodology and its
blanket application. This suggests the need for a reexamination of the
European eoliths.
Significantly, early stone tools from Africa, such as those from the
lower levels of Olduvai Gorge, appear identical to the rejected
European eoliths. Yet they are accepted by the scientific community
without question. This is probably because they fall within, and help
support, the conventional spatio- temporal framework of human
evolution.
But other Eolithic industries of unexpected antiquity continue to
encounter strong opposition. For example, in the 1950s, Louis Leakey
found stone tools over 200,000 years old at Calico in southern
California. According to tandard views, humans did not enter the
subarctic regions of the New World until about 12,000 years ago.
Mainstream scientists responded to Calico
with predictable claims that the objects found there were natural
products or that they were not really 200,000 years old. But there is
sufficient reason to conclude that the Calico finds are genuinely old
human artifcts. Although most of the Calico implements are crude,
some, including a beaked graver, are more advanced.
In Chapter 4, we discuss a category of implements that we call crude
paleoliths. In the case of eoliths, chipping is confined to the
working edge of a naturally broken piece of stone. But the makers of
the crude paleoliths deliberately struck flakes from stone cores and
then shaped them into more recognizable types of tools. In some cases,
the cores themselves were shaped into tools. As we have seen, crude
paleoliths also turn up along with eoliths. But at the sites discussed
in Chapter 4, the paleoliths
are more dominant in the assemblages.
In the category of crude paleoliths, we include Miocene tools (5-25
million years old) found in the late nineteenth century by Carlos
Ribeiro, head of the Geological Survey of Portugal. At an
international conference of archeologists and anthropologists held in
Lisbon, a committee of scientists investigated one of the sites where
Ribeiro had found implements. One of the scientists found a stone tool
even more advanced than the better of Ribeiro's specimens. Comparable
to accepted Late Pleistocene tools of the Mousterian type, it was
firmly embedded in a Miocene conglomerate, in circumstances confirming
its Miocene antiquity.
Crude paleoliths were also found in Miocene formations at Thenay,
France. S. Laing, an English science writer, noted: "On the whole,
the evidence for these Miocene implements seems to be very conclusive,
and the objections to have hardly any other ground than the reluctance
to admit the great antiquity of man."
Scientists also found crude paleoliths of Miocene age at Aurillac,
France. And at Boncelles, Belgium, A. Rutot uncovered an extensive
collection of paleoliths of Oligocene age (25 to 38 million years
old).
In Chapter 5, we examine very advanced stone implements found in
unexpectedly old geological contexts. Whereas the implements discussed
in Chapters 3 and 4 could conceivably be the work of human precursors
such as Homo erectus or Homo habilis, given current estimates of their
capabilities, the implements of Chapter 5 are unquestionably the work
of anatomically modern humans.
Florentino Ameghino, a respected Argentine paleontologist, found stone
tools, signs of fire, broken mammal bones, and a human vertebra in a
Pliocene formation at Monte Hermoso, Argentina. Ameghino made numerous
similar discoveries in Argentina, attracting the attention of
scientists around the world. Despite Ameghino's unique theories about
a South American
origin for the hominids, his actual discoveries are still worth
considering.
In 1912, Ales Hrdlicka, of the Smithsonian Institution, published a
lengthy, but not very reasonable, attack on Ameghino's work. Hrdlicka
asserted that all of Ameghino's finds were from recent Indian
settlements.
In response, Carlos Ameghino, brother of Florentino Ameghino, carried
out new investigations at Miramar, on the Argentine coast south of
Buenos Aires. There he found a series of stone implements, including
bolas, and signs of fire. A commission of geologists confirmed the
implements' position in the Chapadmalalan formation, which modern
geologists say is 3-5 million years old. Carlos Ameghino also found at
Miramar a stone arrowhead firmly embedded in the femur of a Pliocene
species of Toxodon, an extinct South American mammal.
Ethnographer Eric Boman disputed Carlos Ameghino's discoveries but
also unintentionally helped confirm them. In 1920, Carlos Ameghino's
collector, Lorenzo Parodi, found a stone implement in the Pliocene
seaside barranca (cliff) at Miramar and left it in place. Boman was
one of several scientists invited by Ameghino to witness the
implement's extraction. After the implement (a bola stone) was
photographed and removed, another discovery was made. "At my
direction," wrote Boman, "Parodi continued to attack the barranca with
a pick at the same point where the bola stone was discovered, when
suddenly and unexpectedly, there appeared a second stone ball. . . .
It is more like grinding stone than a bola." Boman found yet another
implement 200 yards away. Confounded, Boman could only hint in his
written report that the implements had been planted by Parodi. While
this might conceivably have been true of the first implement, it is
hard to explain the other two in this way. In any case, Boman produced
no evidence whatsoever that Parodi, a longtime employee of the Buenos
Aires Museum of Natural History, had ever behaved fraudulently.
The kinds of implements found by Carlos Ameghino at Miramar
(arrowheads and bolas) are usually considered the work of Homo sapiens
sapiens. Taken at face value, the Miramar finds therefore demonstrate
the presence of anatomically modern humans in South America over 3
million years ago. Interestingly enough, in 1921 M. A. Vignati
discovered in the Late Pliocene
Chapadmalalan formation at Miramar a fully human fossil jaw fragment.
In the early 1950s, Thomas E. Lee of the National Museum of Canada
found advanced stone tools in glacial deposits at Sheguiandah, on
Manitoulin Island in northern Lake Huron. Geologist John Sanford of
Wayne State University argued that the oldest Sheguiandah tools were
at least 65,000 years old and might be as much as 125,000 years old.
For those adhering to
standard views on North American prehistory, such ages were
unacceptable.
Thomas E. Lee complained: "The site's discoverer [Lee] was hounded
from his Civil Service position into prolonged unemployment;
publication outlets were cut off; the evidence was misrepresented by
several prominent authors . . . ; the tons of artifacts vanished into
storage bins of the National Museum of Canada; for refusing to fire
the discoverer, the Director of the
National Museum, who had proposed having a monograph on the site
published, was himself fired and driven into exile; official positions
of prestige and power were exercised in an effort to gain control over
just six Sheguiandah specimens that had not gone under cover; and the
site has been turned into a tourist resort. . . . Sheguiandah would
have forced embarrassing
admissions that the Brahmins did not know everything. It would have
forced the rewriting of almost every book in the business. It had to
be killed. It was killed."
The treatment received by Lee is not an isolated case. In the 1960s,
anthropologists uncovered advanced stone tools at Hueyatlaco, Mexico.
Geologist Virginia Steen-McIntyre and other members of a U.S.
Geological Survey team obtained an age of about 250,000 years for the
sites implement-bearing layers. This challenged not only standard
views of New World anthropology but also the whole standard picture of
human origins. Humans capable of making the kind of tools found at
Hueyatlaco are not thought to have come into existence until around
100,000 years ago in Africa.
Virginia Steen-McIntyre experienced difficulty in getting her dating
study on Hueyatlaco published. "The problem as I see it is much bigger
than Hueyatlaco," she wrote to Estella Leopold, associate editor of
Quaternary Research. "It concerns the manipulation of scientific
thought through the suppression of 'Enigmatic Data,' data that
challenges the prevailing mode
of thinking. Hueyatlaco certainly does that! Not being an
anthropologist, I didn't realize the full significance of our dates
back in 1973, nor how deeply woven into our thought the current theory
of human evolution has become. Our work at Hueyatlaco has been
rejected by most archaeologists because it contradicts that theory,
period."
This pattern of data suppression has a long history. In 1880, J. D.
Whitney, the state geologist of California, published a lengthy review
of advanced stone tools found in California gold mines. The
implements, including spear points and stone mortars and pestles, were
found deep in mine shafts, underneath thick, undisturbed layers of
lava, in formations that geologists now say are from 9 million to over
55 million years old. W. H. Holmes of the Smithsonian Institution, one
of the most vocal nineteenth-
century critics of the California finds, wrote: "Perhaps if Professor
Whitney had fully appreciated the story of human evoution as it is
understood today, he would have hesitated to announce the conclusions
formulated [that humans existed in very ancient times in North
America], notwithstanding the imposing array of testimony with which
he was confronted." In other words, if the facts do not agree with the
favored theory, then such facts, even an imposing array of them, must
be discarded.
In Chapter 6, we review discoveries of anomalously old skeletal
remains of the anatomically modern human type. Perhaps the most
interesting case is that of Castenedolo, Italy, where in the 1880s, G.
Ragazzoni, a geologist, found fossil bones of several Homo sapiens
sapiens individuals in layers of Pliocene sediment 3 to 4 million
years old. Critics typically respond that the bones must have been
placed into these Pliocene layers fairly recently by human burial. But
Ragazzoni was alert to this possibility and carefully inspected the
overlying layers. He found them undisturbed, with absolutely no sign
of burial.
Modern scientists have used radiometric and chemical tests to attach
recent ages to the Castenedolo bones and other anomalously old human
skeletal remains. But, as we show in Appendix 1, these tests can be
quite unreliable. The carbon 14 test is especially unreliable when
applied to bones (such as the Castenedolo bones) that have lain in
museums for decades. Under these circumstances, bones are exposed to
contamination that could cause the carbon 14 test to yield abnormally
young dates. Rigorous purification techniques are required to remove
such contamination. Scientists did not employ these techniques in the
1969 carbon 14 testing of some of the Castenedolo bones, which yielded
an age of less than a thousand years.
Although the carbon 14 date for the Castenedolo material is suspect,
it must still be considered as relevant evidence. But it should be
weighed along with the other evidence, including the original
stratigraphic observations of Ragazzoni, a professional geologist. In
this case, the stratigraphic evidence appears to be more conclusive.
Opposition, on theoretical grounds, to a human presence in the
Pliocene is not a new phenomenon. Speaking of the Castenedolo finds
and others of similar antiquity, the Italian scientist G. Sergi wrote
in 1884: "By means of a despotic scientific prejudice, call it what
you will, every discovery of human remains in the Pliocene has been
discredited."
A good example of such prejudice is provided by R. A. S. Macalister,
who in 1921 wrote about the Castenedolo finds in a textbook on
archeology: "There must be something wrong somewhere." Noting that the
Castenedolo bones were anatomically modern, Macalister concluded: "If
they really belonged to the stratum in which they were found, this
would imply an xtraordinarily long standstill for evolution. It is
much more likely that there is something amiss with the observations."
He further stated: "The acceptance of a Pliocene date for the
Castenedolo skeletons would create so many insoluble problems that we
can hardly hesitate in choosing between the alternatives of adopting
or rejecting their authenticity." This supports the primary
point we are trying to make in Forbidden Archeology, namely, that
there exists in the scientific community a knowledge filter that
screens out unwelcome evidence. This process of knowledge filtration
has been going on for well over a century and continues right up to
the present day.
Our discussion of anomalously old human skeletal remains brings us to
the end of Part I, our catalog of controversial evidence. In Part II
of Forbidden Archeology, we survey the body of accepted evidence that
is generally used to support the now-dominant ideas about human
evolution.
Chapter 7 focuses on the discovery of Pithecanthropus erectus by
Eugene Dubois in Java during the last decade of the nineteenth
century. Historically, the Java man discovery marks a turning point.
Until then, there was no clear picture of human evolution to be upheld
and defended. Therefore, a good number of scientists, most of them
evolutionists, were actively considering a substantial body of evidene
(cataloged in Part I) indicating that anatomically modern humans
existed in the Pliocene and earlier. With the discovery of Java man,
now classified as Homo erectus, the long-awaited missing link turned
up in the Middle Pleistocene. As the Java man find won acceptance
among evolutionists, the body of evidence for a human presence in more
ancient times gradually slid into disrepute.
This evidence was not conclusively invalidated. Instead, at a certain
point, scientists stopped talking and writing about it. It was
incompatible with the idea that apelike Java man was a genuine human
ancestor.
As an example of how the Java man discovery was used to suppress
evidence for a human presence in the Pliocene and earlier, the
following statement made by W. H. Holmes about the California finds
reported by J. D. Whitney is instructive. After asserting that
Whitney's evidence "stands absolutely alone," Holmes complained that
"it implies a human race older by at least
one-half than Pithecanthropus erectus, which may be regarded as an
incipient form of human creature only." Therefore, despite the good
quality of Whitney's evidence, it had to be dismissed.
Interestingly enough, modern researchers have reinterpreted the
original Java Homo erectus fossils. The famous bones reported by
Dubois were a skullcap and femur. Although the two bones were found
over 45 feet apart, in a deposit filled with bones of many other
species, Dubois said they belonged to the same individual. But in
1973, M. H. Day and T. I. Molleson determined that the femur found by
Dubois is different from other Homo erectus femurs and is in fact
indistinguishable from anatomically modern human femurs. This caused
Day and Molleson to propose that the femur was not connected with the
Java man skull.
As far as we can see, this means that we now have an anatomically
modern human femur and a Homo erectus skull in a Middle Pleistocene
stratum that is considered to be 800,000 years old. This provides
further evidence that anatomically modern humans coexisted with more
apelike creatures in unexpectedly remote times. According to standard
views, anatomically modern humans arose just 100,000 years ago in
Africa. Of course, one can always propose that the anatomically modern
human femur somehow got buried quite recently into the Middle
Pleistocene beds at Trinil. But the same could also be said of the
skull.
In Chapter 7, we also consider the many Java Homo erectus discoveries
reported by G. H. R. von Koenigswald and other researchers. Almost all
of these bones were surface finds, the true age of which is doubtful.
Nevertheless, scientists have assigned them Middle and Early
Pleistocene dates obtained by the potassium-argon method. The
potassium-argon method is
used to date layers of volcanic material, not bones. Because the Java
Homo erectus fossils were found on the surface and not below the
intact volcanic layers, it is misleading to assign them
potassium-argon dates obtained from the volcanic layers.
The infamous Piltdown hoax is the subject of Chapter 8. Early in this
century, Charles Dawson, an amateur collector, found pieces of a human
skull near Piltdown. Subsequently, scientists such as Sir Arthur Smith
Woodward of the British Museum and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
participated with Dawson in excavations that uncovered an apelike jaw,
along with several mammalian fossils of appropriate antiquity. Dawson
and Woodward, believing the combination of humanlike skull and apelike
jaw represented a human ancestor from the Early Pleistocene or Late
Pliocene, announced their discovery to the scientific world. For the
next four decades, Piltdown man was accepted as a genuine discovery
and was integrated into the human
evolutionary lineage.
In the 1950s, J. S. Weiner, K. P. Oakley, and other British scientists
exposed Piltdown man as an exceedingly clever hoax, carried out by
someone with great scientific expertise. Some blamed Dawson or
Teilhard de Chardin, but others have accused Sir Arthur Smith Woodward
of the British Museum, Sir Arthur Keith of the Hunterian Museum of the
Royal Collee of Surgeons, William Sollas of the geology department at
Cambridge, and Sir Grafton Eliot Smith, a famous anatomist.
J. S. Weiner himself noted: "Behind it all we sense, therefore, a
strong and impelling motive. . . . There could have been a mad desire
to assist the doctrine of human evolution by furnishing the
'requisite' 'missing link'. . . . Piltdown might have offered
irresistible attraction to some fanatical biologist."
Piltdown is significant in that it shows that there are instances of
deliberate fraud in paleoanthropology, in addition to the general
process of knowledge filtration.
Finally, there is substantial, though not incontrovertible, evidence
that the Piltdown skull, at least, was a genuine fossil. The Piltdown
gravels in which it was found are now thought to be 75,000 to 125,000
years old. An anatomically modern human skull of this age in England
would be considered anomalous.
Chapter 9 takes us to China, where in 1929 Davidson Black reported the
discovery of Peking man fossils at Zhoukoudian (formerly Choukoutien).
Now classified as Homo erectus, the Peking man specimens were lost to
science during the Second World War. Traditionally, Peking man has
been depicted as a cave dweller who had mastered the arts of stone
tool manufacturing, hunting, and building fires. But a certain number
of influential researchers regarded this view as mistaken. They saw
Peking man as the prey of a more advanced hominid, whose skeletal
remains have not yet been discovered.
In 1983, Wu Rukang and Lin Shenglong published an article in
Scientific American purporting to show an evolutionary increase in
brain size during the 230,000 years of the Homo erectus occupation of
the Zhoukoudian cave. But we show that this proposal was based on a
misleading statistical presentation of the cranial evidence.
In addition to the famous Peking man discoveries, many more hominid
finds have been made in China. These include, say Chinese workers,
australopithecines, various grades of Homo erectus, Neanderthaloids,
early Homo sapiens, and anatomically modern Homo sapiens. The dating
of these hominids is problematic. They occur at sites along with
fossils of mammals broadly characteristic of the Pleistocene. In
reading various reports, we noticed that scientists routinely used the
morphology of the hominid remains to date these sites more precisely.
For example, at Tongzi, South China, Homo sapiens fossils were found
along with mammalian fossils. Qiu Zhonglang said: "The fauna suggests
a Middle-Upper Pleistocene range, but the archeological [i.e., human]
evidence is consistent with an Upper Pleistocene age." Qiu, using what
we call morphological dating, therefore assigned the site, and hence
the human fossils, to the Upper Pleistocene. A more reasonable
conclusion would be that the Homo sapiens fossils could be as old as
the Middle Pleistocene. Indeed, our examination of the Tongzi faunal
evidence shows mammalian species that became extinct at the end of the
Middle Pleistocene. This indicates that the Tongzi site, and the Homo
sapiens fossils, are at least 100,000 years old. Additional faunal
evidence suggests a maximum age of about 600,000 years.
The practice of morphological dating substantially distorts the
hominid fossil record. In effect, scientists simply arrange the
hominid fossils according to a favored evolutionary sequence, although
the accompanying faunal evidence does not dictate this. If one
considers the true probable date ranges for the Chinese hominids, one
finds that various grades of Homo erectus and various grades of early
Homo sapiens (including Neanderthaloids) may have coexisted with
anatomically modern Homo sapiens
in the middle Middle Pleistocene, during the time of the Zhoukoudian
Homo erectus occupation.
In Chapter 10, we consider the possible coexistence of primitive
hominids and anatomically modern humans not only in the distant past
but in the present. Over the past century, scientists have accumulated
evidence suggesting that humanlike ceatures resembling
Gigantopithecus, Australopithecus, Homo erectus, and the Neanderthals
are living in various wilderness areas of the world. In North America,
these creatures are known as Sasquatch. In Central Asia, they are
called Almas. In Africa, China,
Southeast Asia, Central America, and South America, they are known by
other names. Some researchers use the general term "wildmen" to
include them all. Scientists and physicians have reported seeing live
wildmen, dead wildmen, and footprints. They have also catalogued
thousands of reports from ordinary people who have seen wildmen, as
well as similar reports from
historical records.
Myra Shackley, a British anthropologist, wrote to us: "Opinions vary,
but I guess the commonest would be that there is indeed sufficient
evidence to suggest at least the possibility of the existence of
various unclassified manlike creatures, but that in the present state
of our knowledge it is impossible to comment on their significance in
any more detail. The position is further complicated by misquotes,
hoaxing, and lunatic fringe activities, but a surprising number of
hard core anthropologists seem to be of the opinion that the matter is
very worthwhile investigating."
Chapter 11 takes us to Africa. We describe in detail the cases
mentioned in the first part of this introduction (Reck's skeleton, the
Laetoli footprints, etc.). These provide evidence for anatomically
modern humans in the Early Pleistocene and Late Pliocene.
We also examine the status of Australopithecus. Most anthropologists
say Australopithecus was a human ancestor with an apelike head, a
humanlike body, and a humanlike bipedal stance and gait. But other
researchers make a convincing case for a radically different view of
Australopithecus. Physical anthropologist C. E. Oxnard wrote in his
book Uniqueness and Diversity in Human Evolution (1975): "Pending
further evidence we are left with the vision of intermediately sized
animals, at home in the trees, capable of climbing, performing degrees
of acrobatics, and perhaps of arm suspension." In a 1975 article in
Nature, Oxnard found the australopithecines to be anatomically similar
to orangutans and said "it is rather unlikely that any of the
Australopithecines . . . can have any direct phylogenetic link with
the genus Homo."
Oxnard's view is not new. Earlier in this century, when the first
australopithecines were discovered, many anthropologists, such as Sir
Arthur Keith, declined to characterize them as human ancestors. But
they were later overruled. In his book The Order of Man (1984), Oxnard
noted: "In the uproar, at the time, as to whether or not these
creatures were near ape or human, the opinion that they were human won
the day. This may well have resulted not only in the defeat of the
contrary opinion but also the burying of that part of the evidence
upon which the contrary opinion was based. If this is so, it should be
possible to unearth this other part of the evidence." And that, in a
more general way, is what we have done in Forbidden Archeology. We
have unearthed buried evidence, evidence which supports a view of
human origins and antiquity quite different from that currently held.
In Appendix 1, we review chemical and radiometric dating techniques
andtheir application to human fossil remains, including some of those
discussed in Chapter 6. In Appendix 2, we provide a limited selection
of evidence for ancient humans displaying a level of culture beyond
that indicated by the stone tools discussed in Chapters 3-5. And in
Appendix 3, we provide a table listing almost all of the discoveries
contained in Forbidden Archeology.
Some might question why we would put together a book like Forbidden
Archeology, unless we had some underlying purpose. Indeed, there is
some underlying purpose.
Richard Thompson and I are members of the Bhaktivedanta Institute, a
branch of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness that
studies the relationship between modern science and the world view
expressed in the Vedc literature. This institute was founded by our
spiritual master, His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami
Prabhupada, who encouraged us to critically examine the prevailing
account of human origins and the methods by which it was established.
From the Vedic literature, we derive the idea that the human race is
of great antiquity. To conduct systematic research into the existing
scientific literature on human antiquity, we expressed the Vedic idea
in the form of a theory that various humanlike and apelike beings have
coexisted for a long time.
That our theoretical outlook is derived from the Vedic literature
should not disqualify it. Theory selection can come from many
sources--a private inspiration, previous theories, a suggestion from a
friend, a movie, and so on. What really matters is not a theory's
source but its ability to account for observations.
Our research program led to results we did not anticipate, and hence a
book much larger than originally envisioned. Because of this, we have
not been able to develop in this volume our ideas about an alternative
to current theories of human origins. We are therefore planning a
second volume relating our extensive research results in this area to
our Vedic source material.
Given their underlying purpose, Forbidden Archeology and its
forthcoming companion volume may therefore be of interest to cultural
and cognitive anthropologists, scholars of religion, and others
concerned with the interactions of cultures in time and space.
At this point, I would like to say something about my collaboration
with Richard Thompson. Richard is a scientist by training, a
mathematician who has published refereed articles and books in the
fields of mathematical biology, remote sensing from satellites,
geology, and physics. I am not a scientist by training. Since 1977, I
have been a writer and editor for books and magazines published by the
Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.
In 1984, Richard asked his assistant to begin collecting material on
human origins and antiquity. In 1986, Richard asked me to take that
material and organize it into a book.
As I reviewed the material provided to me by the assistant, I was
struck by the very small number of reports from 1859, when Darwin
published The Origin of Species, until 1894, when Dubois published his
report on Java man. Curious about this, I asked Stephen to obtain some
anthropology books from the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries. In these books, including an early edition of Boule's
Fossil Men, I found highly negative reviews of numerous reports from
the period in question. By tracing out footnotes, we dug up a few
samples of these reports. Most of them, by nineteenth-century
scientists, described incised bones, stone tools, and anatomically
modern skeletal remains encountered in unexpectedly old geological
contexts. The reports were of high quality, answering many possible
objections. This encouraged me to make a more systematic search.
Digging up this buried literary evidence required another three years.
My researcher and I obtained rare conference volumes and journals from
around the world, and together we translated the material into
English. The results of this labor provided the basis for Chapters 2-6
in Forbidden Archeology.
After I reviewed the material Stephen gave me about the Peking man
discoveries, I decided we should also look at recent hominid finds in
China. While going through dozens of technical books and papers, I
noticed the phenomenon of morphological dating. And when I reviewed
our African material, I encountered hints of the dissenting view
regarding Australopithecus. My curiosity about these two areas also
led to a fruitful extension of our original research program.
(...)
Quintal
<qui...@ZEJOGOZJEhotmail.com> wrote:
>alt.religion.jehovahs-witn,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.art-bell,alt.alien.visitors,francom.esoterisme
>
>On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 12:17:04 GMT, Ed Conrad <edco...@verizon.net>
>wrote:
>
>>This may be extremely hard for evolutionists to accept
>>-- or comprehend -- but the plain simple fact is that there
>>isn't a shred of physical evidence confirming evolution.
>><
>>Zilch!
>
>hello Ed, I read about a book titled "Forbidden Archaeology".
>There seems to be many more strange findings than your human bones in
>coal. A footprint of 5 million years ago (and from a shoe!).
>Manufactured spheres of 2.8 millions years ago. And so on. Fun stuff.
>No wonder we dont hear about it. Each community, like the scientific
>one, acts as a buffer delivering to the public only what the
>corporations want them to hear about. The rest is hushed.
>Frankly, wouldnt this make a great subject for a tv documentary? I
>havent heard of any. Keep the sheople in line I suppose.
actualy, there is one on eMule, made by PBS :
PBS - Mysterious Origins Of Man - Forbidden Archeology (1996).avi
And there are also abridged versions of the book.
(eMule server : Razorback 2.0)
Quintal
I just posted a whole book on alt.conspiracy, in this thread.
the book is:
Cremo, Michael - Hidden History Of The Human Race (v2.0) - Abridged
Forbidden Archeology.rar
the post is over 10000 lines long.
-
alt.religion.jehovahs-witn,alt.fan.art-bell,alt.alien.visitors,francom.esoterisme,talk.origins
DrPostman
scribed:
>alt.religion.jehovahs-witn,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.art-bell,alt.alien.visitors,francom.esoterisme
>
>On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 12:17:04 GMT, Ed Conrad <edco...@verizon.net>
>wrote:
>
>>This may be extremely hard for evolutionists to accept
>>-- or comprehend -- but the plain simple fact is that there
>>isn't a shred of physical evidence confirming evolution.
>><
>>Zilch!
>
>hello Ed, I read about a book titled "Forbidden Archaeology".
>There seems to be many more strange findings than your human bones in
>coal. A footprint of 5 million years ago (and from a shoe!).
>Manufactured spheres of 2.8 millions years ago. And so on. Fun stuff.
>No wonder we dont hear about it. Each community, like the scientific
>one, acts as a buffer delivering to the public only what the
>corporations want them to hear about. The rest is hushed.
>Frankly, wouldnt this make a great subject for a tv documentary? I
>havent heard of any. Keep the sheople in line I suppose.
Funny you should make that claim:
"Despite all this hard work, I think the book falls short of a
scientific work primarily (but not entirely) because (1) its arguments
abandon the testing of simpler hypothesis before the more complex and
sensationalistic ones, and (2) the use of so many outdated sources is
inadequate for a book that seeks to overturn the well-established
paradigm of human evolution -- scholars must not work in isolation,
especially today, when multi-disciplinary approaches are needed to
remain on the cutting edge of knowledge. However, for researchers
studying the growth, folklore, and rhetoric of pseudo-science, the
book is useful as ‘field’ data."
source: http://www.ramtops.co.uk/tarzia.html
The author of that goes into great detail why "Forbidden Archeology"
is worthless as science.
What is it about multi and inter - disciplinary research that is
so anathema to pseudoscientists? Too easy to debunk
their claims when all the angles don't add up.
Of course, you can tell me where the author of that piece
went wrong, right? Details, if you please.
--
DrPostman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors, afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® #15-51506-253.
AFA-B Official Pollster & Hammer of Thor winner - August 2004
You can email me at: DrPostman(at)gmail.com
"Before a war military science seems a real
science, like astronomy; but after a war it
seems more like astrology."
-Dame Rebecca West
John Griffin
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 12:17:04 GMT, Ed Conrad
> <edco...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> yap yap yap yap yap yap yap...
> ... sheople ...
Try to be more lame. You'll find it mighty fuckin' difficult.
d
"Ed Conrad" <edco...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:nt1rs1hjmk0emfbed...@4ax.com...
> <
> <
> This may be extremely hard for evolutionists to accept
> -- or comprehend -- but the plain simple fact is that there
> isn't a shred of physical evidence confirming evolution.
> <
So DNA doesn't exist, the fossil record doesn't exist, shared genetic
material doesn't exist. Great one, asshat.
Also, there is no such thing as an "evolutionist" - there are SCIENTISTS and
NON-SCIENTISTS. Scientists believe what they believe due to evidence and
proof. You seem to believe what you believe due to a book with no
authentication.
Where's your proof that God pulled everything out of his ass in 6 days? Oh
yeah - there is absolutely, positively no evidence of that what-so-ever.
Absolutely none. Even a child can go to a library (provided Ed hasn't
burned it down for being blasphemic) and get countless books on evolution.
People can make their own minds up. They can look at the evidence, look at
the peer review, and come to their own conclusions. Heck - if they know
something the scientists don't, they can even change the theory themselves.
That's the scientific method.
You, however, have nothing.
Aråchñomâniâ
"d" <d...@example.com> wrote in message
news:BTuzf.3468$wl....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> You, however, have nothing.
============================
They have their Holy Babble. That's all the evidence the ignorant need.
--
CR..........
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not
based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe."
~ Carl Sagan ~
~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~* ~~*
BDK
edco...@verizon.net says...
> <
> <
> This may be extremely hard for evolutionists to accept
> -- or comprehend -- but the plain simple fact is that there
> isn't a shred of physical evidence confirming evolution.
> <
> Zilch!
> <
>
SNIP! WHole lotta loon ravings..
ED, go for it, everyone likes to laugh at a freak and his freakshow. LOL
The freak is you...in case you were wondering.
BDK
Quintal
wrote:
painfully easy.
1/ the book doesnt favor any hypothesis, it just shows how data has
been selectively interpreted and chosen. 5allright, i take that from
the few words i read of its intro lol)
2/the outdated sources are precisely there to show how bias happened
when the theory of evolution conquered the minds, at the time it did.
These outdated sources also show, what most people ignore, that many
scientists of that time made cogent objections to that theory, and
provided relevant observations to do so.
Hell you should read its intro as I did.
But then, with such a bias... I guess it wont be very revealing.
Quintal
wrote:
baah baah;-))
moo mooo
hahahaah
Quintal
wrote:
>Quintal <qui...@ZEJOGOZJEhotmail.com> wrote:
if you had a grain of thought, you would realize that the fear of
"being lame" is herd mentality, precisely what i'm highlighting.
Bookman
wrote:
><
><
>This may be extremely hard
No doubt it will be hard for you, since no one will pay to see
your meaningless rocks, Ed. HTH.
Get back to us[tinu] when you actually understand science.
ESL!
--
Bookman -The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in AFA-B
Kazoo Konspirator #668 (The Neighbor of the Beast)
Clue-Bat Wrangler
Keeper of the Nickname Lists
Despotic Kookologist of the New World Order
Monthly Hammer of Thor award, October 2005
"I'd love to kill you in a ring" - Bartmo gets all touchy-feely
"****SPV....... So yes I am an idiot."
"ASK THE NWS, YOUR TAX DOLLAR GOES TO THEM NOT TO DR.TURI."
- Mr. Turi explains how to accurately predict hurricanes
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/afa-b/
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/afa-b/index.html
Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)
<nt1rs1hjmk0emfbed...@4ax.com>:
> <
> <
> This may be extremely hard for evolutionists to accept
> -- or comprehend -- but the plain simple fact is that there
> isn't a shred of physical evidence confirming evolution.
Fuck off, k00k. Learn the difference between "proof", and "evidence",
as they relate to scientific theories, mmm-kay?
--
V.G.
"i would blame them it they went on a holy jhiad and killed off all the infidels, would you?"
- AssLexa's "200+" alien-implanted IQ jumps the rails and crashes into a grade school, killing all inside.
Change pobox dot alaska to gci.
Sarcasm is my sword, Apathy is my shield.
Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)
<qui...@ZEJOGOZJEhotmail.com> wrote in alt.fan.art-bell in message
<geits1d9bjt81nj5d...@4ax.com>:
> >The author of that goes into great detail why "Forbidden Archeology"
> >is worthless as science.
> >
> >What is it about multi and inter - disciplinary research that is
> >so anathema to pseudoscientists? Too easy to debunk
> >their claims when all the angles don't add up.
> >
> >Of course, you can tell me where the author of that piece
> >went wrong, right? Details, if you please.
>
> painfully easy.
>
> 1/ the book doesnt favor any hypothesis, it just shows how data has
> been selectively interpreted and chosen. 5allright, i take that from
> the few words i read of its intro lol)
>
> 2/the outdated sources are precisely there to show how bias happened
> when the theory of evolution conquered the minds, at the time it did.
> These outdated sources also show, what most people ignore, that many
> scientists of that time made cogent objections to that theory, and
> provided relevant observations to do so.
>
> Hell you should read its intro as I did.
> But then, with such a bias... I guess it wont be very revealing.
Evolution is happening RIGHT NOW. Deal with it.
Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)
<qui...@ZEJOGOZJEhotmail.com> wrote in alt.fan.art-bell in message
It obviously doesn't bother you at all.
Bookman
<vgor...@pobox.alaska.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 12:17:04 GMT, Ed Conrad <edco...@verizon.net>
>wrote in alt.fan.art-bell in message
><nt1rs1hjmk0emfbed...@4ax.com>:
>
>> <
>> <
>> This may be extremely hard for evolutionists to accept
>> -- or comprehend -- but the plain simple fact is that there
>> isn't a shred of physical evidence confirming evolution.
>
>Fuck off, k00k. Learn the difference between "proof", and "evidence",
>as they relate to scientific theories, mmm-kay?
Ed will never do that, V.G. Doing that would interfere with his ko0ky
"theories". HTH.
DrPostman
<qui...@ZEJOGOZJEhotmail.com> in accordance with The Prophecy
scribed:
>On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 07:34:23 -0600, DrPostman <Lo...@mysig.foremail>
>wrote:
>>The author of that goes into great detail why "Forbidden Archeology"
>>is worthless as science.
>>
>>What is it about multi and inter - disciplinary research that is
>>so anathema to pseudoscientists? Too easy to debunk
>>their claims when all the angles don't add up.
>>
>>Of course, you can tell me where the author of that piece
>>went wrong, right? Details, if you please.
>
>painfully easy.
>
>1/ the book doesnt favor any hypothesis, it just shows how data has
>been selectively interpreted and chosen. 5allright, i take that from
>the few words i read of its intro lol)
No, it promotes inaccurate claims.
>2/the outdated sources are precisely there to show how bias happened
>when the theory of evolution conquered the minds, at the time it did.
>These outdated sources also show, what most people ignore, that many
>scientists of that time made cogent objections to that theory, and
>provided relevant observations to do so.
What is relevant about faulty data? Most of the claims made have
NOTHING to back them up. Anecdotal just doesn't cut it as science.
>Hell you should read its intro as I did.
>But then, with such a bias... I guess it wont be very revealing.
I did, I also read the rest of the piece. Did you?
DrPostman
<qui...@ZEJOGOZJEhotmail.com> in accordance with The Prophecy
scribed:
>On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 12:37:19 GMT, Quintal
><qui...@ZEJOGOZJEhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>alt.religion.jehovahs-witn,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.art-bell,alt.alien.visitors,francom.esoterisme
>>
>>On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 12:17:04 GMT, Ed Conrad <edco...@verizon.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>This may be extremely hard for evolutionists to accept
>>>-- or comprehend -- but the plain simple fact is that there
>>>isn't a shred of physical evidence confirming evolution.
>>><
>>>Zilch!
>>
>>hello Ed, I read about a book titled "Forbidden Archaeology".
>>There seems to be many more strange findings than your human bones in
>>coal. A footprint of 5 million years ago (and from a shoe!).
>>Manufactured spheres of 2.8 millions years ago. And so on. Fun stuff.
>>No wonder we dont hear about it. Each community, like the scientific
>>one, acts as a buffer delivering to the public only what the
>>corporations want them to hear about. The rest is hushed.
>>Frankly, wouldnt this make a great subject for a tv documentary? I
>>havent heard of any. Keep the sheople in line I suppose.
>
>actualy, there is one on eMule, made by PBS :
>
>PBS - Mysterious Origins Of Man - Forbidden Archeology (1996).avi
>
>And there are also abridged versions of the book.
>(eMule server : Razorback 2.0)
With so much interesting and real science and research why waste
more than a little bit of time (like MOM) on pseudoscience? The
claims made in that book are useless, which is probably why
MOM covered a lot more than just that book.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom.html
Quintal
<vgor...@pobox.alaska.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 23:07:53 GMT, Quintal
><qui...@ZEJOGOZJEhotmail.com> wrote in alt.fan.art-bell in message
><geits1d9bjt81nj5d...@4ax.com>:
>
>> >The author of that goes into great detail why "Forbidden Archeology"
>> >is worthless as science.
>> >
>> >What is it about multi and inter - disciplinary research that is
>> >so anathema to pseudoscientists? Too easy to debunk
>> >their claims when all the angles don't add up.
>> >
>> >Of course, you can tell me where the author of that piece
>> >went wrong, right? Details, if you please.
>>
>> painfully easy.
>>
>> 1/ the book doesnt favor any hypothesis, it just shows how data has
>> been selectively interpreted and chosen. 5allright, i take that from
>> the few words i read of its intro lol)
>>
>> 2/the outdated sources are precisely there to show how bias happened
>> when the theory of evolution conquered the minds, at the time it did.
>> These outdated sources also show, what most people ignore, that many
>> scientists of that time made cogent objections to that theory, and
>> provided relevant observations to do so.
>>
>> Hell you should read its intro as I did.
>> But then, with such a bias... I guess it wont be very revealing.
>
>Evolution is happening RIGHT NOW. Deal with it.
me, deal with your belief? Nope. You deal with it.
I have no anchored belief in the matter.
Quintal
wrote:
nope.
Quintal
<vgor...@pobox.alaska.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 23:09:00 GMT, Quintal
><qui...@ZEJOGOZJEhotmail.com> wrote in alt.fan.art-bell in message
><8mits11c7umee0gm8...@4ax.com>:
>
>> On 18 Jan 2006 16:31:39 GMT, John Griffin <thathi...@yahooie.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Quintal <qui...@ZEJOGOZJEhotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 12:17:04 GMT, Ed Conrad
>> >> <edco...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> yap yap yap yap yap yap yap...
>> >
>> >> ... sheople ...
>> >
>> >Try to be more lame. You'll find it mighty fuckin' difficult.
>>
>> if you had a grain of thought, you would realize that the fear of
>> "being lame" is herd mentality, precisely what i'm highlighting.
>>
>
>It obviously doesn't bother you at all.
what lamers like you think of me?
No, it doesnt. Fortunately.
Bunn E. Rabbit
>
>"Ed Conrad" <edco...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:nt1rs1hjmk0emfbed...@4ax.com...
>> <
>> <
>> This may be extremely hard for evolutionists to accept
>> -- or comprehend -- but the plain simple fact is that there
>> isn't a shred of physical evidence confirming evolution.
>> <
>
>So DNA doesn't exist, the fossil record doesn't exist, shared genetic
>material doesn't exist.
That's right. Our reality is a Computer Simulation created by one of
our future ancestors who's a Spice drug addict. Our reality runs on
XP and Ed is spyware.
Just trying to help.
--
Bunn E. Rabbit
>Great one, asshat.
>
>Also, there is no such thing as an "evolutionist" - there are SCIENTISTS and
>NON-SCIENTISTS. Scientists believe what they believe due to evidence and
>proof. You seem to believe what you believe due to a book with no
>authentication.
>
>Where's your proof that God pulled everything out of his ass in 6 days? Oh
>yeah - there is absolutely, positively no evidence of that what-so-ever.
>Absolutely none. Even a child can go to a library (provided Ed hasn't
>burned it down for being blasphemic) and get countless books on evolution.
>People can make their own minds up. They can look at the evidence, look at
>the peer review, and come to their own conclusions. Heck - if they know
>something the scientists don't, they can even change the theory themselves.
>That's the scientific method.
>
>You, however, have nothing.
>
-------------------------------------
Fed up with illegal immigration?
_____
Forums to discuss news items of illegal immigration:
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/listarticles.cgi?117
http://www.saveourstate.org
http://www.minutemanhq.com/hq/index.php
Indexes breaking news of illegal immigration:
Other important links:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frostyA.htm
http://www.rescuewithoutborders.org/index.html
http://www.americanpatrol.com/LINKS/LINKS.html
http://www.vdare.com/links.htm
http://fairus.org/
http://numbersusa.com/index
_____
"Cosmic upheaval is not so moving as a little child pondering the death
of a sparrow in the corner of a barn." -Anouk Aimee, French Actor
_____
"Death is better, a milder fate than tyranny", Aeschylus (525BC-456BC),
Agamemnon
_____
"I wear no Burka." - Mother Nature
----------
To send mail: remove hutch
John Griffin
Uh-huh. <snicker> <snicker> <snicker> (That was just equally
lame, at best, retardate.)
"My kid isn't retarded. He's dyslexic." -- your mommy
DrPostman
Wouldn't want to expose yourself to views that might
conflict with your fantasies, eh?
Quintal
wrote:
What fantasies? I just relayed what I read from the intro.
Read yourself, have your own conclusions. Doesnt matter to me which
conclusion you come to.
As for my fantasies, I saw a pic of manufactured metal spheres 3
millions years old. Enough for my conclusion of the moment. May be
hogwash. Doesn't matter either. The point is, believing what you're
told to believe is insane. That's all. Ah yes, and there are many
institutions in our "free" society whose job is to tell us what to
believe.
Quintal
<qui...@ZEJOGOZJEhotmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 20:16:03 -0900, "Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)"
><vgor...@pobox.alaska.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 23:09:00 GMT, Quintal
>><qui...@ZEJOGOZJEhotmail.com> wrote in alt.fan.art-bell in message
>><8mits11c7umee0gm8...@4ax.com>:
>>
>>> On 18 Jan 2006 16:31:39 GMT, John Griffin <thathi...@yahooie.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Quintal <qui...@ZEJOGOZJEhotmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 12:17:04 GMT, Ed Conrad
>>> >> <edco...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> yap yap yap yap yap yap yap...
>>> >
>>> >> ... sheople ...
>>> >
>>> >Try to be more lame. You'll find it mighty fuckin' difficult.
>>>
>>> if you had a grain of thought, you would realize that the fear of
>>> "being lame" is herd mentality, precisely what i'm highlighting.
>>>
>>
>>It obviously doesn't bother you at all.
>
>what lamers like you think of me?
>No, it doesnt. Fortunately.
the point is, if you cant stand being looked at by the crowd, the
herd, as a black sheep, then you're a slave to whatever the herd tells
you to think and do. And you baaah happily your way straight to the
slaughterhouse, happy to be part of the crowd.
chop !
Quintal
wrote:
>Quintal <qui...@ZEJOGOZJEhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 18 Jan 2006 16:31:39 GMT, John Griffin
>> <thathi...@yahooie.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Quintal <qui...@ZEJOGOZJEhotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 12:17:04 GMT, Ed Conrad
>>>> <edco...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> yap yap yap yap yap yap yap...
>>>
>>>> ... sheople ...
>>>
>>>Try to be more lame. You'll find it mighty fuckin' difficult.
>>
>> if you had a grain of thought, you would realize that the fear
>> of "being lame" is herd mentality, precisely what i'm
>> highlighting.
>
>Uh-huh. <snicker> <snicker> <snicker> (That was just equally
>lame, at best, retardate.)
>
>"My kid isn't retarded. He's dyslexic." -- your mommy
any point in there?
"yap yap" ?
Right... have a mirror.
Quintal
Waking Up From the Trance of
Social and Scientific Orthodox Propaganda
"What luck for rulers that men do not think"
- Adolf Hitler
So, with all the "stuff" out there in terms of what we are
being told every day, how do we keep ourselves from becoming duped and
"doped"? Can we achieve immunity from the vast epidemic of
mindlessness that sweeps each year like clockwork through our society?
What do I know, and how do I know it? From what source am I
getting my information? How do I recognize a "snowjob"?
If an idea is presented to you as THE explanation for some
event or THE solution to some problem, you must say to yourself, "what
other solutions are available?"
Try playing with other explanations that will lead to other
solutions, such as reversing cause-effect relationships.
SWEEPING GENERALITIES or "ALLNESS" STATEMENTS: When you hear
or read statements such as "doctors say" or "experts agree", the
implication is that all doctors say, or all experts agree. Say to
yourself, "have you talked to every doctor on the planet or every
expert on the planet?" Likewise, when you hear the expression "nobody
knows" or "no known cure" or "no evidence for", talk back to them and
say to yourself, "Nobody you know knows", or "There is no cure you
know of", or "There is no evidence you know about." Try substituting
SOMENESS in place of ALLNESS - "Some doctors agree", or "Some
scientists say", and you'll get the true picture.
Be ALERT for words like: all, everybody, no one, no, never,
always, entirely, totally, completely and absolutely.
Example of an ALLNESS statement: The Salk vaccine was hailed
as the "most dramatic breakthrough of the 20th century". Here, the
unqualified superlatives assume that whoever said this was familiar
with all the scientists who ever lived and all the breakthroughs of
the 20th century. The statement also assumes that "a purely objective
standard of superiority exists", which it doesn't. When superlatives
are used, they should always be qualified, such as "the greatest
breakthrough I've ever known". ALLNESS statements expressed by those
who have set themselves as society's "experts" (with your unwitting
support) use ALLNESS statements to "box you in". Of course, they have
to stay in that same box if they want to keep their "job" as a social
"expert".
Ad Verecundiam: This rather trite Latin phrase refers to the
fallacy of logic of believing "leading authorities" without any
supporting science. Externally, we are speaking of the "mystique" of
perceived "authority". The maintenance of the "authority mystique"
depends heavily on:
Limiting access to information
Limiting access to choices that challenge the position of the
"authority"
In other words, ISOLATION of the population. ISOLATION is also
a component of brainwashing. Because the intellect learns by
COMPARISON, when it is presented with only ONE POINT OF VIEW or
CONFLICTING DUALITIES as presented in the orthodox media (resulting in
chronic indecision), the intellect loses the capacity to discriminate
and ultimately ITS CAPACITY FOR FULLY RATIONAL THOUGHT.
We must not forget that there are many orders, degrees,
levels, and kinds of realities that correspond to as many kinds of
minds that perceive and create those realities. When this fact is
forgotten, TUNNEL VISION develops.
Groups in "power" mode pretend "absolute objectivity", which
of course is impossible, and because they are emotionally and
"promotionally" involved, develop TUNNEL VISION. When a group in power
has a vested interest in sickness and disease, the approaches to the
problem (which in many cases has been deliberately created) will be
expensive, circuitous and complex . (AIDS,CANCER, GULF WAR SYNDROME,
WAR ON DRUGS, GUN CONTROL)
ONE CATEGORY: One of the results of the Elite - Non-elite
polarity in society, as well as the growth of global socialism, is the
lumping together of everyone in the population and the adoption of
"mass treatment" programs that ignore individual sensitivities and
characteristics which socially and biologically makes every "human
being" unique. Thus, we see "mass vaccination", "mass fluoridation",
"mass genocide" and other forms of this that manifest themselves as
HERD PROCESSING. This type of thought and action carries a tendency to
over-simplify solutions, exaggerate benefits, minimize or ignore
hazards, discourage or silence the scholarly or thoughtful opposition,
create an urgency where none really exists, create mass fear and
extend the concept of state police powers far beyond its conceptual
limitations.
REASONING BY ANALOGY: Because of the uniqueness of people and
events, very often the shared characteristics between events or
situations are fewer than the differences between them. When a person
decides to make a point by comparing the small number of shared
characteristics, it is called "reasoning by analogy". The problem with
this kind of reasoning is that often crucial differences are ignored,
leading to faulty analogies and post hoc reasoning in order to support
an argument. Example: Epidemics occurred many years ago and were
apparently corrected by vaccines, therefore these epidemics will
reoccur if no vaccines are used. This is post hoc reasoning assuming a
casual relationship between two events.
POLARITIES: To most people, the world is divided into two
camps, right/wrong, black/white. There is no alternative. It is also
called either/or or two-valued thinking. Two-valued thinking can be
very useful for the propagandist because it creates FALSE DILEMMAS. An
example of this is when an allopathic physician declares to parents
concerned about the inherent danger in vaccines that "the risks of the
disease outweigh the risks of the vaccine". In other words, he is
saying "there is only ONE WAY to prevent the disease - vaccine use",
and there are no alternatives.
CARD STACKING: Card stacking is an extension of the two-valued
thinking just mentioned. It is the "art" of carefully selecting and
presenting ideas and data (that may be true or false) so that only the
best or worst possible case is presented. Any other possibilities are
either ignored or discredited. The object of all this is to get the
public to REACT STRONGLY, "FOR" or "AGAINST" an idea, issue, person,
or object.
An example of this technique would be a pediatrician to
explains to a television audience how "vaccines wiped out" dread
diseases, without giving credit to improved sanitation, personal
hygiene, improved diet, or the supreme capabilities of the immune
system. The technique is very often accompanied, in terms of
"studies", by publication of incomplete data, promotion of
far-reaching claims and refusal to publish collateral data which
questions the safety or efficacy of what is being promoted.
Card stacking can also be concealed by misleading use of words
and "discussions" where only the proponents of a particular group are
present.
LOADED IMAGES: The goal of the propagandist is to "stack the
deck" with emotionally charged meanings or connotations. An example
would be reference to a disease as a "hidden menace" or a "killer and
crippler" and that "a vaccine is the only solution." Interestingly, in
terms of vaccines for relatively benign, self-limiting diseases of
childhood, these diseases have because of vaccines been transformed
into more serious conditions in adolescents and young adults. See our
master analysis of the vaccine paradigm or books on the subject for
details.
LOADED WORDS: Loaded words can be used to get attention, arose
fear and induce the population to obey "authorities". Newspapers are a
good source illustrating this. With reference to disease and the
allopathic paradigm, words like "dread", "deadly" and "risk" appear
frequently in order to intimidate the reader. In order to suppress
movement toward alternatives, words like "quack" are ironically
directed toward "unapproved" solutions. The irony is that the word
"quack", associated with incompetence and deception, belongs with
orthodox allopathy, not as a blanket ALLNESS directed toward
non-polaric alternatives and proponents of them. But, this is the way
orthodoxy attempts, and succeeds, at intimidating the public.
THE BANDWAGON APPROACH: Everywhere you will find editorials in
newspapers which argue for passage of a particular law or proposal by
pointing out something like "16 states now have this law" or "35
states now use fluoridation", or "65,000 children received this
vaccine last year in Ohio", suggesting that "everybody is doing it" so
it "must be right". The bandwagon approach to propaganda. The idea
that something is "right" or "good" if enough people are doing it is
one of the most seductive of mental traps, because within it lies the
human need to belong to a group. The problem with "bandwagons" is that
they can easily promote mindless conformism and unconsciousness.
Because bandwagons are action-oriented rather than critical-inquiry
oriented, unconsciousness is often a consequence. The "solutions"
often demanded by bandwagon approaches are nearly always quantitative
in terms of "status quo" solutions. Nowhere is this better illustrated
than in the vaccination and AIDS bandwagons. With vaccines, it is
"more education" and "more legislation" to get more people injected.
With AIDS, it is "more money" for "more research" into "more drugs"
and "more vaccines". Bandwagons, therefore, can easily become part of
the problem itself.
Copyright © 1988-2006 Leading Edge International Research Group
Page Revised: June 29 2002
DrPostman
<qui...@ZEJOGOZJEhotmail.com> in accordance with The Prophecy
scribed:
>What fantasies? I just relayed what I read from the intro.
>Read yourself, have your own conclusions. Doesnt matter to me which
>conclusion you come to.
The rest of the article goes on to explain the problems with the
claims in that book. I was hoping you would take the time to
consider them. Instead you continue dismiss what you
haven't investigated. Contempt prior to investigation is
truly a bar against all information, which is proof against all
arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting
ignorance (to paraphrase Herbert Spencer).
>As for my fantasies, I saw a pic of manufactured metal spheres 3
>millions years old. Enough for my conclusion of the moment. May be
Concluding what? Forbidden Archeology cites as a credible source of
reliable information the "Weekly World News". How can you make
conclusions from sources like that? Are you so credulous that seeing
a picture is all you need? What about the chain of evidence for the
object in the photo? No way it could be faked? Could Bat Boy have
been the true origin of the photo?
>hogwash. Doesn't matter either. The point is, believing what you're
>told to believe is insane. That's all. Ah yes, and there are many
>institutions in our "free" society whose job is to tell us what to
>believe.
Forbidden Archeology is telling you what to believe, and you
seem to have bought it hook, line, and sinker.
Science provides evidence along with conclusions. If you
have a way to dispute that evidence then please do
share it with us. Otherwise you are promoting nonsense.
DrPostman
<qui...@ZEJOGOZJEhotmail.com> in accordance with The Prophecy
scribed:
>On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 00:05:28 GMT, Quintal
You do realize, don't you, that replying to yourself is a major
kooksign?
You are in the heard of the passionately credulous and are too
deep in denial to see it.
Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)
wrote in alt.fan.art-bell in message
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 20:13:35 -0900, "Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)"
> <vgor...@pobox.alaska.net> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 12:17:04 GMT, Ed Conrad <edco...@verizon.net>
> >wrote in alt.fan.art-bell in message
> ><nt1rs1hjmk0emfbed...@4ax.com>:
> >
> >> <
> >> <
> >> This may be extremely hard for evolutionists to accept
> >> -- or comprehend -- but the plain simple fact is that there
> >> isn't a shred of physical evidence confirming evolution.
> >
> >Fuck off, k00k. Learn the difference between "proof", and "evidence",
> >as they relate to scientific theories, mmm-kay?
>
> Ed will never do that, V.G. Doing that would interfere with his ko0ky
> "theories". HTH.
>
> ESL!
Indeed!
Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)
<BunnE...@verizon.net> wrote in alt.fan.art-bell in message
<jla0t11j3ush388tt...@4ax.com>:
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 17:26:57 GMT, "d" <d...@example.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ed Conrad" <edco...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >news:nt1rs1hjmk0emfbed...@4ax.com...
> >> <
> >> <
> >> This may be extremely hard for evolutionists to accept
> >> -- or comprehend -- but the plain simple fact is that there
> >> isn't a shred of physical evidence confirming evolution.
> >> <
> >
> >So DNA doesn't exist, the fossil record doesn't exist, shared genetic
> >material doesn't exist.
>
>
> That's right. Our reality is a Computer Simulation created by one of
> our future ancestors who's a Spice drug addict. Our reality runs on
> XP and Ed is spyware.
>
> Just trying to help.
DAMMIT!!
Quintal
wrote:
Doesnt bother me. Because that book is just a book, and not a tool of
an institution. I can change opinion in a pinch tomorrow. I'm not tied
by submission to an authority.
>Science provides evidence along with conclusions.
yeah right (yawn).
Science is just the ministry of information in our western societies.
Your bullshit about evidence and rationality is just the justification
for that function. The function is : we tell you what you have to
believe. You're buying the shit here. You're really believing that you
are being rational when believing what you're told to believe. You're
really believing that you are doing some science. Nope. You're as
gullible as those who believe their religious authority. Beauty of the
manipulation is, you dont see it.
> If you
>have a way to dispute that evidence then please do
>share it with us. Otherwise you are promoting nonsense.
Nope, I'm promoting freedom of thought. You're promoting submission to
authority, under the guise of rationality (hogwash).
(Beauty of the manipulation is, you dont see it. )
Your own mind hides it from you. "OMG I couldnt be irrational or
misled, could I?". The trick is, you dont want to see you are actualy
believing and not knowing. My trick is, I know I am believing, and I
choose to decide freely what I will believe.
Hence my recentering of the topic here. Dont believe something because
someone tells you to. Do it because you really like it, because it
really is efficient as a belief for you. It provides results that you
enjoy.
Hence I certainly doubt the official conclusions of academic
archaeology. ANY counter opinion is valuable, just to give an
alternative. Doesnt matter if it's rational or not. It's about freedom
of thought and imagination. Dont let others run your imagination,
buddy, it's insane. You do noty KNOW anything about the past, or the
future, or and barely anything about the present (only what your
senses tell you here and now).
Quintal
wrote:
You dont realize, obviously, that I was not replying to myself but
expanding on what I had previously said. But your desire to paint me
as a kook gets the best of you. Now the question would be for any
friend of reason and introspection : why this desire? And of course,
it has to do with you in relation to yourself. What part of you dont
accept?
>You are in the heard of the passionately credulous and are too
>deep in denial to see it.
Here, have a mirror;-)
DrPostman
You sure seem to be.
>>Science provides evidence along with conclusions.
>
>yeah right (yawn).
>Science is just the ministry of information in our western societies.
>Your bullshit about evidence and rationality is just the justification
>for that function. The function is : we tell you what you have to
>believe. You're buying the shit here. You're really believing that you
>are being rational when believing what you're told to believe. You're
>really believing that you are doing some science. Nope. You're as
>gullible as those who believe their religious authority. Beauty of the
>manipulation is, you dont see it.
And what authority told you to believe that?
Do you even know any scientists?
>> If you
>>have a way to dispute that evidence then please do
>>share it with us. Otherwise you are promoting nonsense.
>
>Nope, I'm promoting freedom of thought. You're promoting submission to
>authority, under the guise of rationality (hogwash).
No, I am using evidence, you are using absence.
>(Beauty of the manipulation is, you dont see it. )
What authority told you to say that?
>Your own mind hides it from you. "OMG I couldnt be irrational or
You are quite the assuming ass, aren't you?
>misled, could I?". The trick is, you dont want to see you are actualy
>believing and not knowing. My trick is, I know I am believing, and I
>choose to decide freely what I will believe.
So do I, assuming ass. I also look into the evidence presented,
something your pseudoscience fears.
>Hence my recentering of the topic here. Dont believe something because
>someone tells you to. Do it because you really like it, because it
>really is efficient as a belief for you. It provides results that you
>enjoy.
If someone tells you not to jump off a cliff I bet you would consider
doing it.
>Hence I certainly doubt the official conclusions of academic
>archaeology.
What authority told you to say that?
>ANY counter opinion is valuable, just to give an
>alternative. Doesnt matter if it's rational or not. It's about freedom
>of thought and imagination. Dont let others run your imagination,
>buddy, it's insane. You do noty KNOW anything about the past, or the
>future, or and barely anything about the present (only what your
>senses tell you here and now).
So, rather than argue the evidence you attack the process with
paranoia.
--
DrPostman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors, afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® #15-51506-253.
AFA-B Official Pollster & Hammer of Thor winner - August 2004
You can email me at: DrPostman(at)gmail.com
"When Chuck Norris works out on the Total Gym, the
Total Gym feels like it's been raped. "
- www.chucknorrisfacts.com
DrPostman
You can rationalize it all you want to.
>
>>You are in the heard of the passionately credulous and are too
>>deep in denial to see it.
>
>Here, have a mirror;-)
I would see someone who isn't credulous. What would you see?
--
DrPostman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors, afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® #15-51506-253.
AFA-B Official Pollster & Hammer of Thor winner - August 2004
You can email me at: DrPostman(at)gmail.com
Quintal
wrote:
someone who dares to believe...
jeez if i didnt dare to believe, i still would be enclosed in the neat
box you're describing to us.
Told you, you're believing what you're told to, and you're not even
aware of it. You think you're being rationnal. That's your belief, and
guess what, it's not even yours, you've been told to believe it as
well.
The way out of this is to take the reigns of your beliefs and
imagination yourself, you're free to believe what you want. Do it.
You're free to think what you want. Do it too. Do believe what seems
irrational, insane or whatever label you've been burdened with in
order to prevent you from thinking freely.
Do choose your beliefs according to what really matters : the effect
they have on your life. And if your priority is only to be in good
terms with authorities.. well.. talk to you next year.
Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)
<qui...@ZEJOGOZJEhotmail.com> wrote in alt.fan.art-bell in message
> Science is just the ministry of information in our western societies.
> Your bullshit about evidence and rationality is just the justification
> for that function. The function is : we tell you what you have to
> believe. You're buying the shit here. You're really believing that you
> are being rational when believing what you're told to believe. You're
> really believing that you are doing some science. Nope. You're as
> gullible as those who believe their religious authority. Beauty of the
> manipulation is, you dont see it.
Nice gobble, Bongload. Have some Doritos.
BDK
vgor...@pobox.alaska.net says...
Oh no, no Doritos, they have sharp edges, and he might hurt himself.
BDK
Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)
<king...@buckeye-express.com> wrote in alt.fan.art-bell in message
<MPG.1e40ebe8...@news.buckeye-express.com>:
Hmm. Well, I was going to suggest the other staple of pothead
snacking, Twinkies, but they're full of chemicals, and he appears to
have more than enough of those floating around his blood stream as it
is, but now that I think about it, they probably don't have that many
more chemicals than Doritos. He can't have carrots, they have pointy
ends on them, he'd try to smoke a bale of alfalfa, and he would
quickly figure out a way to make a bong out of a potato, so maybe he
should starve to death?
DrPostman
<inv®lid@inv®alid.inv®alid> in accordance with The Prophecy scribed:
>
>"Quintal" <qui...@ZEJOGOZJEhotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:cp5ct1tano3gcekiq...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:17:39 -0600, DrPostman <Lo...@mysig.foremail>
>> wrote:
>
>Would you folks be kind enough to stop cross-posting to ARJ-W, a religious
>NG? We're here to discuss the Jehovah's Witness religion and these Jabriol
>started threads are off-topic for us. Thanks so much..........
I'd be glad to. One point though - you might want to address this
to Ed. Neither one of us started this thread
--
DrPostman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors, afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® #15-51506-253.
AFA-B Official Pollster & Hammer of Thor winner - August 2004
You can email me at: DrPostman(at)gmail.com
"Chuck Norris wears a live rattlesnake as a condom. "
- www.chucknorrisfacts.com