As mentioned in my last post – this my own version of tilting at windmills — I complained to Amazon that they had no right to censor my review of The Ghost; The Secret Life of Spymaster James Jesus Angleton, given that all I said was true and on the record. I even re-submitted the review with an outraged note up front, accusing Amazon of censorship.
To my surprise, they got back to me and apologized for the transgression and inserted my review, even including my accusatory note. You can find it here. (Make sure you go to ‘Most Recent Reviews’)
As I say at the very end of Can’t You Get Along…, ‘Sometimes people will surprise you. I mean in a good way.’ I say this because the apology came from a person, who signed her name at the bottom of the email. Although Amazon no doubt has a PTB-backed policy that resulted in my review’s initial banishment, whatever the policy is, it was apparently overruled by an individual. Yes, a tiny, tiny victory.
Note the ‘Note’ they also left in.
As promised, I’m working on a post regarding the issue of the biological/evolutionary origins of man. Along these lines, over the last few days I delved into a book I’d been meaning to get around to, titled The Seven Daughters of Eve; The Science That Reveals Our Genetic Ancestry by Brian Sykes, an Oxford-ensconced heavy-weight in mainstream genetics. On a certain level I was over my head but on another level I was not. I’m not particularly math-minded and likewise aspects of the technical intricacies of genetics are above me, but on the other hand, I knew where the author was apt to go wrong via my studies in other areas of science, like cosmology. Also, in the back of my mind lurked the fact that humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, while all the other primates have 24. I’d looked into this issue in enough depth to know that no mainstream geneticist wants to discuss it, in spite of the staggering implications.
Addendum: I also knew that mainstream geneticists assume that the DNA mutation rate has been constant over the millennia, indeed over the whole two billion-plus year history of life on earth, and knew that this assumption was almost certainly very, very wrong; this based partly on my interest in Electric Universe theory. Mutation rates vary directly with the intensity of cosmic ray bombardment, for example, which has had horrendous spikes over the eons. There’s a lot more to this but here is not the place.
I was pleasantly surprised, however, by the book’s apparent clarity and the firm basis of most of its conclusions, with a couple major exceptions.
I might as well say this here: My over-the-top claim to know more about HTWRW than almost anyone else on the planet is based on my multidisciplinary approach to subjects of import, and the rest of this post will be an example of this. What do I mean? Since I mentioned cosmology, let’s deal with it, the ‘queen of sciences.’ There are many, many folks who know way more about cosmology than I (all the Electric Universe scholars, for ex), but their dedication to the subject means they are unaware of the deceit imbedded in other, even related, subjects.
EU folks support the official fiction of Apollo, for example, a belief that hoists me up pretty far regarding ‘general knowledge’ of HTWRW, IMO (I mean compared to them). None of those very smart folks are aware of the extent to which we are bombarded by false flag events, either. They all tend to believe in the random mutation/natural selection aspect of neo-Darwinism, to boot. And so forth. (Since EU is considered a ‘fringe’ science, its proponents bend way over in an attempt to show how ‘reasonable’ they are in accepting various ‘standard models’ in sister sciences. I find this pretty upsetting.)
Just one problem: This dinosaur would’ve passed out, since his heart could not pump blood all the way to his head, in earth’s current gravity.
Another example of why I think I’m ‘smart’ just popped into my head and some of you may remember it. A while back I tried to correct Dr. Jospeph Farrell’s view that a planet much more massive than earth would be apt to have ‘giants’ living on it. Quite the opposite, I told him (via email), given that – for example – neither dinosaurs nor any other huge land animals could have survived in earth’s gravity; larger animals need less gravity to move about, not more. (You also may recall Farrell’s outrage that I quoted him on his ignorance.)
Point being, I’m not a true expert on most issues, but I know enough about enough subjects to deserve my own unofficial P.H.d in over all knowledge. Plus I tend to notice things, and connect these things with other things, and then see the implications.
Having read The Seven Daughters of Eve I think I can give you all an interesting example of how I ‘know’ more than the author (a highly regarded P.H.d in the hard science of genetics), and will correct a fairly serious error he makes in his book. I hope you find the information worthwhile.
The Mitochondrial DNA. Complex yes, but just remember that only females pass it along.
Sykes makes a strong case that human mitochondrial DNA – which is only passed down in the female line (this is vital) – indicates that early humans did not have sex with Neanderthals, since the latter’s DNA would be obvious; after many thousands of cases, none of the offending DNA has ever showed up in human remains. (Mitochondrial DNA is separate in the cell from nuclear DNA, and, again, is only passed on by mothers.)
His book came out in 2017, so there is no excuse for his not knowing that most humans (virtually anyone on earth with the exception of pure Africans) have between 2 and 4 percent Neanderthal DNA in their genome (their nuclear DNA), which, obviously, means that the two species did have sex, and quite a bit of it. This has been known since around 2010. Very strange. How/why would this Oxford P.H.d mislead us on this important issue?
Further, in his speculative biography of one of his ‘seven Eve’s’ he claims that when early homo sapiens ran into Neanderthals in Paleolithic Europe and Asia, the two species avoided each other. He goes as far to opine that Neanderthals were ‘wary’ of their smaller much weaker distant relations and even gave up territory to avoid a confrontation.
Mmmm. Do you buy that? But let’s circle back to the DNA issue. It’s true (verified by others) that Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA is totally absent from homo sapiens. Yet the two species had sex and produced offspring – hence the percentage of Neanderthal DNA in all of us. How did this work? Here’s how, and you will only hear this from me (plus one other person, whom I’ll get to): Sex between the two was always via a male Neanderthal and a human female. Male homo sapiens never had sex with female Neanderthals. (Remember, this is coming from Sykes and the mainstream.)
The ‘official’ version of a Neanderthal male. Mellow and harmless is the image the PTB science promotes.
This may seem counterintuitive but think about it. Assuming the above, i.e., sex was always between a male Neanderthal and female homo sapiens, since mitochondrial DNA is only passed via the female line, no Neanderthal DNA will show up in the homo sapiens lineage, not in her male offspring and not in her female offspring, whereas if a male homo sapiens impregnates a female Neanderthal – this is in theory, since it apparently never happened — her offspring would have the mother’s (Neanderthal) mitochondrial DNA to pass on to future generations.
This is a really mind-blowing fact, if you think about it (which we will do). Even more mind-blowing is this fact: No mainstream geneticist, anthropologist, paleontologist, or historian is going to tell you about it. They won’t even think about it, let alone write about it, because of its implications. Notwithstanding that what I’m telling you is the obvious truth.
If you evolved in the frozen tundra of the ice age, you might look like this.
In fact, folks, if I do say so myself, this is still another example of something vital — something important, something right out there hidden in plain sight — that I have noticed that almost no one else has. (I say ‘almost’ because I know of one other person who has.)
But what are the implications? What’s the big deal? Why is it staggering? One word should do it: Rape.
RAPE.
At least Fifty-thousand years of rape. (The minimum number of years the two species inhabited the same territory, according to the mainstream version of ‘the history of man’.) What mainstream science does not tell you, and what is obvious from the above observation by Sykes and the mainstream (that sex was always between Neanderthal males and homo sapiens females) is that from the moment the two species first met, it was war.
To the death shit.
If you’re wondering how I could come up with this conclusion based solely on the (accepted by mainstream science) fact that sex was only between Neanderthal males and homo sapiens females, hang in for a moment… oh, by the way, the other implication is that us human guys in the Paleolithic wouldn’t, or didn’t, go near Neanderthal babes, not for the tens of thousands of years we were in their proximity.
I am utterly astounded that Sykes makes the observations he does about the human and Neanderthal genomes – via both mitochondrial and nuclear DNA – and claims in this 2017 book that humans and Neanderthals did not procreate. I have found podcasts both pre and post The Seven Daughters of Eve wherein he lectures us on the implications of our Neanderthal DNA (again, 2 to 4%), without making the tiny leap of logic that tells us of the inter-species rape that is directly implied by the lack of Neanderthal DNA in our mitochondrial genes.
Since there is no evidence that they wore or made clothes, this is more likely how they looked. Why can’t science fess up?
I have spent a good part of the last two days scanning book reviews – by the mainstream and Amazon readers – and have found that no one noticed this utterly glaring… inaccuracy. In fact, Sykes’s failure to understand the implications of his own work is so egregious that I have to give him the ‘moral’ benefit of the doubt and see it as classic Orwellian doublethink, and not dishonesty. See, the mainstream view of Neanderthals has always been that they were merely less intelligent versions of modern humans (homo sapiens) and therefore not inherently vicious, let alone warlike. This is of course is absurd, on several layers, given our behavior since the Paleolithic.
Sykes is also ‘forgetting’ that there is copious evidence that Neanderthals practiced cannibalism, which implies – need I even say it? – that the first sight of our ancestors must’ve set Pavlov’s salivation response in full mode.
They ate us and they raped our women.
And like all the mainstream PC views of Neanderthals, Sykes assumes they were as hairless as we are now, i.e., not full-furry like the rest of the primates. Given that Neanderthals evolved in the frozen tundra of the ice age and given that no evidence whatsoever has surfaced that they wore clothes (no bone needles/etc. in any of their archaeological sites), and what we have is a tool-making apex predator of nearly the size and physical strength of a gorilla whose diet was 95% meat, and who had a brain even larger than ours. Oh, and the evidence is that they hunted in packs.
And he’s telling us that they were afraid of our puny ancestors! They avoided us!? Right, except when the silverback males were ravishing our women!
Look, if this one-way sex (Neanderthal males and human females) doesn’t tell you it was inter-species war from the get-go, guys, please picture your wife or lover being ravished by a beast only slightly more human than a gorilla, and ask yourself what you would do.
Think the guy on the left would run from the guy on the right? Sykes thinks so.
If this needs to be explained to you further, I suggest you read Danny
Vendramini’s Them & Us; How Neanderthal Predation Created Modern Humans. Danny may not have it all on the money, but his basic thesis is all but proved by the uni-directional sex Sykes himself has uncovered. And yes, Vendramini is the one other person on the planet (that I know of) that has figured out that the mainstream view of Neanderthals is still another crock of shit foisted upon us to make sure that nothing we know is true (to quote CIA chief Bill Casey).
Welcome to mainstream science!
Addendum: In his book, Sykes compounds his inability to see the forest for the trees by writing that if sex had occurred between the two species – ‘and if we keep history in mind’ – it would be male homo sapiens doing the deed to female Neanderthals – exactly the opposite of the truth – since with ‘dominant intruders’ (the Spanish and New World Indians, say) this is the way it works. The strong rapes the weak, is what he is saying, forgetting how it might go if he (Sykes) was thrown in the ring with a sex-crazed 300 pound, fur-bearing version of Hulk Hogan.
But if you need more evidence of how absurd Sykes’s paradigm is (yes, still another mainstream ‘standard model’), take a glance at a Neanderthal skeleton next to homo sapiens. Or look at a gorilla at the zoo, then at a human companion. And this well-known, highly respected scientist not only tells us (in his 2017 book) that Neanderthals and humans didn’t have sex, but had they, it would have been us raping them!
Why is this? What’s the problem with ‘human knowledge,’ given that an aging, semi-senile idiot who doesn’t know enough not to buy a boat is so much smarter than the anthropologists and biologists and evolutionary P.H.ds from the top universities in the country, if not the world?
Here’s my view of ‘what’s wrong’ at least in this specific case: For whatever PTB-backed reason, they don’t want us to know that our species almost died out from Neanderthals killing and eating us – not to mention raping our women – for tens of thousands of years — until we figured out how to kill them better. That last bit — until we figured out how to kill them better – is maybe the secret. You and I, us useless eaters, are not supposed to know that slaughtering our cousins is deeply set in our DNA. If we knew that we might get an idea of what should be done to those who are pathologically lying to us.
I have a bad feeling about this subject. Like they may be lying about everything. Mmmm.
Okay. I hope I’ve made my point. If some of you are still unclear as to why the issue of ‘no Neanderthal DNA in our mitochondrial DNA’ proves Vendramini’s (and to a much lesser extent, my) point, take some time, do some reading and critical thinking (it took me a while) and you’ll eventually get it.
A final addendum: All of the above hinges on assuming the accuracy of at least the basics of mainstream genetics. Helluvan assumption to say the least. For example – and I’ll get into this in a future post – that we humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while the rest of the primates have 24, is, to me, powerful evidence that some genetic ‘engineering’ occurred way back in our dim past, before the Neanderthals started raping homo sapiens females. This complicates matters to the point where we cannot have Sykes’s ‘no Neanderthal’ mitochondrial DNA paradigm and the genetic engineering the chromosome difference implies.
One thing I know for sure: Mainstream ‘scientists’ like Brian Sykes do nothing but confuse the issue.
Whether they know it or not, it’s their job.
I’ll soon be adding a book review to this one.
Allan
By the way, to add… insult to ignorance, The Seven Daughters of Eve is not indexed, so it’s very difficult to verify Sykes’s ‘facts.’
Some very interesting comments on this one. I wish I had the energy to concentrate on each one — explain why you may be wrong or realize you are right and I am wrong. A bit tired right now so forgive the inattention. I want to get into the 23 – 24 chromosome pairing (us and the other primates) and the implications of it, since this difference is inarguable and has implications even more mind bending than the sex/rape/war issue.
And the big question: Why are we being deceived on these issues?
What are the alternatives to Darwinian evolution? I love the work the Intel design scientists are doing but they also are ignoring glaring questions, just as egregious as the Darwinians. For example: if common descent (and evolving species, one to the next) is untrue, where does that leave us? Pooof! Like Star Trek, species are beamed down by God — hundreds of millions of miracles (each species repping a separate creation miracle)? It’s this or some version of common descent, seems to me. What other choices are there? And yet, NONE of the I.D. guys (who, again, I love, but….) ever gets specific on how a species appears. I asked this question in my Open Letter to them, but of course got no answer.
More on this in the post.
Allan, have you ever considered the possibility that the NeoDarwinian Theory of Evolution, a synthesis of Darwin’s theory of natural selection and modern genetic theory developed in the mid-20th century, and a theory that has since become the leading paradigm in modern biology, is analogous to the Newtonian Theory in physics in the late 1800s?
That may be a stretch for some, but please allow me to explain.
Newton’s ‘mechanical universe’ Theory was developed in the late 17th century and it reigned supreme in physics for hundreds of years. In fact, it was considered by many scientists in the 19th century to be the ‘final theory’ in physics, with only ‘minor mathematical details’ to be worked out.
That view of physical reality changed radically in the early 20th century with the work of Albert Einstein, who developed his theories of relativity, and other physicists like Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrodinger who developed Quantum Theory, arguably the most successful (and certainly the strangest) theory in the history of Western science.
Anyway, here is the bottom line for anyone who is interested. It was discovered a century ago that Newton’s “absolute” mechanical laws of space and time “break down,” if you will, at dual levels – at velocities approaching light speed (Einstein) and at subatomic levels of reality (Bohr et al.).
In other words, simply put, Newton’s “universal” Theory, as brilliant as it was (is) was limited in scope; it failed to explain the whole of physical reality.
So, is it not possible that the NeoDarwinian Theory is also incomplete; that is, it cannot explain the whole of evolutionary reality, and that a more comprehensive view of the process will eventually “evolve” in the future?
Food for thought…
I don’t believe, that DNA is the carrier of genetic information. It changes in stress situations for instance. DNA fingerprint tests are fraud. Also how do we know that radiation influences genetic information? It’s what the inventors of this ideas told us. We learned that in schools and we have to believe that, right? We’ll never know for sure, how different animals came into existence.
Do you know how breeders create certain races of dogs for instance? They cover bitches with their own children (inbreeding) which causes losses in the chromosomes called alleles. Then they get malformations, some of them they like and keep, others they destroy. They keep inbreeding, still covering parents with children expressing certain attributes more and more until they get what they want. But the output gets weaker by every generation because its genetic pool gets poorer. So they combine two different paths together to create a hybrid hoping that both parts will contain the lost chromosomes and complete each other. It never works 100%. That’s why purebred stocks usually are always notably sensitive to diseases and live shorter than mongrels.
If you don’t believe that DNA is the carrier of genetic information, then there is nothing much else to say, is there? I agree that we have been lied to about almost everything, but you can go too far — you end up with ‘flat earth logic,’ if you get my drift.
(DNA is not the ONLY carrier of genetic information, is the way I see it.
how is this “flat earth logic”, if I claim, that an organic acid, which cells produce to split and replicate themselves and which has no stable order cannot carry genetic information? To encode any information you’ll need a stable carrier which doesn’t change your code. Think a hard disc, which loses its content if you shake it. Take a closer look at the DNA fingerprint test. If two different tests of the same probe don’t produce the same pattern, how can you compare two different probes then? Its crap but it is the basis of the entire microbiology and lots of people make lots of money with it. It started after the war, where young and eager scientists, well educated children of in the war depraved bourgeoisie, first found out, that certain sicknesses could not be caused by poison (Latin virus) but did not drop the term. Instead they changed the meaning of Virus. DNA was known back then already and was popularized by media as the carrier of genetic information. This young scientists claimed, that this sicknesses were caused by somehow damaged DNA and invented the virus as the destroyer of the DNA.
http://www.wissenschafftplus.de/uploads/article/Dismantling-the-Virus-Theory.pdf
One thing at a time. You say, ‘I don’t believe, that DNA is the carrier of genetic information.’
If you believe that, then there is nothing more to say on the subject of this post. Sorry but after this sentence, the rest didn’t really come across well, as in I did not understand what you were talking about — in the context of ‘I don’t believe, that DNA is the carrier of genetic information.’
Hahahaha. DNA doesn’t contain genetic information. That’s a good one. Viruses can mutate and implant and destroy DNA. Are you being just like, “I don’t believe that because I don’t want to?” That is very flat earth-ish. You are literally ignoring massive amounts of evidence to the contrary, because you feel like it. Let me guess. You are very religious and believe a lot of things with no evidence supporting it, and massive evidence against it, because you feel like it.
Chris, this is a good example of how misunderstanding someone on purpose is being done. I didn’t say that DNA does not contain genetic information, It is not the carrier of the genetic code. That is something entirely different. This code is supposed to be stable and constant through the life span, no? Otherwise how can anyone compare two probes and claim they are equal? This comparison of two DNA probes is the basis of the entire microbiology and a trillion dollar business. If this is fake (and it is fake) all microbiology, huge parts of chemistry, and many other things where millions of people make their living is basically worthless. We still don’t really know how genetic information is being reproduced. DNA was but one theory to explain this but it was proven wrong already half a century ago. Yet still the majority of involved scientists ignore this fact because they are paid to do so. There is no such thing as a virus by the way. It also was only an idea to explain what causes certain sicknesses, if there are no bacteria and no poison involved. Still to this day nobody ever isolated any virus, nobody ever caused sickness using a virus, nobody ever saw a virus. I said “I don’t believe” in the meaning, that I’m no longer convinced, this is a true representation. I did not mean it the religious way. I’m agnostic and sceptical since I was a child: The counterpart of a religious person.
It’s not fake, though. AIDS seems pretty associated with a virus. Oh I’m sorry, what would you like to call the things most people call viruses? If they can’t isolate them, how do they reproduce them to put in vaccines? What causes measles and smallpox? Why doesn’t antibiotics work on those diseases and influenza, yet virus-based vaccines prevent them by stimulating your immune system? Where did polio go? Lots of evidence to ignore.
Barbara, you clearly did say that DNA doesn’t carry genetic information. Scroll up and read your words. Please explain, and if you’re going to say that DNA theory was proved wrong half a century ago, you have to include some links to the papers that say this. At the very least.
Allan, I wrote that DNA “cannot carry genetic information” I didn’t say, that it does not contain any genetic information. To be the carrier of a code means the entire code is there always available and unchangeable and can be encoded just from there. Think of a secret message coded in letters and written on a piece of paper. Any book contains letters but is any book the carrier of this secret message? We still didn’t found this piece of paper where the message is encoded, we don’t know which code is used, we only know that somehow some kind of genetic information is being spread and children usually look similar to their parents. Even the term “genetic information” is just a roughly approximation of what we observe derived from signal theory. Did you read, what Stefan Lanka wrote on his paper? You won’t find a link where the mainstream confesses to hoaxes.
” Some 445,000 years ago, Astronauts from another planet came to earth in search of Gold”………….. that is all for now- Aloha
I know. If this is true, it debunks most of the genetic theories brought up in my post. whaddya gonna do?
It was a documentary crew. “In search of the treasures of Earthdorado.”
I found a great example of what I’m trying to tell you in this post. Go about halfway into this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLXPi0Jha5o
She will tell you what Sykes said about no Neanderthal DNA in our mitochondrial DNA, yet we have 2 – 4% Neanderthal in our overall genome. Watch how — when she tries to get to what this really means — she stutters, changes the subject, and avoids the issue. They even have a quote about our ancestors ‘falling in love’ with a Neanderthal. She never says what the data means: the sex was always between a Neanderthal male and a sapiens female, and what that implies. TED talk misdirection!
WOW … now that was a post that really got my intellectual juices flowing … by no means am I even close to having any real knowledge of DNA/species understanding, but I’m all in. So many questions … the African one, how does that apply, why/how is it different? Why is it not addressed? The race question also seems to be quite relevant, though I’m not really sure how. Anything that I could check out quickly to help me get more up to speed on the topic would be greatly appreciated.
Also, the creepy face morphing video … was borderline terrifying ……. how many years behind the PTB are we with our knowledge/understanding of this technology that holds us in it’s grasp … in almost every conceivable way …..
There is an art to doing searches; you have to link words in your head, try them, see how it goes. Practice and you come up with unexpected stuff. Try the semi-unexpected.
The face morphing is a good example of why I just shake my head when people give me shit about hologram technology, like it’s absurd that we could be fooled. Well, there you are.
Hey, shit, I got the author’s name mixed up. It was not Adam Rutherford. It was Brian Sykes! Got to change that in the post. Sorry!
Bullseye. Perhaps it was Bill Sykes!
I even got that wrong. It’s Bryan not Brian. Having a senior day.
This is something that has bothered me for years. I seem to recall reading that red hair was something inherited from the Neanderthals, and anybody who’s known someone with red hair will tell you they’re a tad “volatile”.
That was always one small hint to me that they weren’t as peaceful as mainstream always said they were.
I dunno about the connection, but… who knows? (Might check and see if redheads get into more violence via police records, etc. I would bet they’d come up with no connection….)
I think you missed something in Alan’s article.
I have always found the Red head woman to be sweet, and usually gorgeous, and the men to be quite full of their own importance & short fused .
The DeepFake of Obumma I saw was pretty damn good, but I knew something was WEIRD about his face (without knowing it was a “deepfake” ).
Are they going to polish up this emerging DeepFake technology, and finally trot out the old Fake Alien Invasion , I wonder out loud?.
You are very much forgiven for a couple of wrong names pinned on the donkeys Allan! 🙂
If you’ve not studied the thinking of Lynn Margulis I recommend you give her a look.
I’m familiar with her. She was very creative, etc., but still a Darwinian, i.e., believed in random mutation as the bottom line cause of variation, which is just flat not true. Read any of the books by the guys at the Discovery Institute — Behe, Meyer, Wells, etc. Real eye opener. Or see my open letter to them at http://blog.banditobooks.com/an-open-letter-to-michael-behe-stephen-meyer-and-douglas-axe/
This is a pretty worthwhile post re the subject we’re getting into here….
My first post ever here. The “Seven Daughters of Eve…” book referenced here seems to be by Bryan Sykes (not Adam Rutherford). What am I missing?
After rereading Captain Zero once again recently, Allan, I looked you up to see what may be forthcoming and wow!, this is some really interesting stuff. But how does one not go insane (or just be an angry, suspicious person), the more of these things one learns?
Anyway, I’ve read most of these blog posts and please keep up the good work.
Thanks for the heads up re the author’s name. My bad!
This may be worth a look https://www.mudfossils.com/
The mudfossils guy is a lunatic. You really think there were 900 mile wide dragons that fossilized perfectly into dry river beds?
With the talk regarding giants and dinosaurs i think Roger Spurr’s work is worthwhile to consider. https://www.mudfossils.com/
It’s an excellent point about the variability of the rate of mutation. I think it’s another case where a good working assumption, “Let’s start by assuming a constant rate and see what all we can explain with that before we introduce yet another variable” fossilized (heh) into dogma, “The rate *is* constant.”
That was how I was taught gradualism in geology: not as an absolute, but as a starting point.
Great post. I would also like to add another possibility other than rape to account for the lack of neanderthal presence in mitochondrial DNA. How about selective breeding or something like it? Since we don’t seem to be here on this planet by some random coincidence, maybe the intelligent designer(s) had something in mind.
Off subject but someone just sent me this clip of what must be ‘face-faking’ and how good they are at it now. Truly, we can’t believe anything on ‘face’ value:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/deepfake-bill-hader-doing-impression-150652821.html
It’s either brilliant CGI or that guy is a… demon… either way, it’s like… whoa!
Holy shit Batman! That CGI is crazy! I expect more shenanigans of this sort to play out in everything video/cinematography, etc. I’ve seen them morph a video stream from a composite of someone else to make it look like that person. This, again, takes it to another level of deception. And this is what? at least a dozen or so years behind military grade stuff.
Exactly. We can’t even imagine what DARPA/etc. has in their tool box.
Even the writer, Brian Koerber of Mashable, hints at bad things to come,
“While sure, it’s really entertaining, it’s also pretty scary. The technology behind deepfakes continues to improve, and it’s only a matter of time before it’s used to spread harmful disinformation to the public.”
The only thing wrong with his parting shot is that it’s ALREADY here and who might the bad actors be (maybe our our award winning 3-letter agencies comes to mind).
Yes, we saw how rough they were with 911 in many area’s, – on a clear sunny day, a DARK brooding plane turns up out of the coal mines of hell, THEN it’s (what are supposed to be) wafer thin aluminum wings proceed to slice through those massive steel columns, and after all that, the INTACT nose of the “plane” sticks out the other side of the building!.
They will use this tech as an excuse to claim that any “spilling” of Epstein’s ” control files” on powerful perverts into the internet are invalid and fabricated. Watch how this might play out in the Controlled Media. If the Controlled Media promotes it (as an excuse) then we know it isn’t true.
I’ve literally been contemplating on how to get my kids off social media and yt …. I think I’m going to start with no tech days ( wifes already on board ) ..
It’s good CGI/ :
“Paperspace is the computing cloud platform built for the future to power a wide range of next-generation applications”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=193&v=VWrhRBb-1Ig
The guy could be an excellent mimetist, but you can’t change your teeth without some trickery. His teeth are a bit irregular but not when he is impersonating Tom.
I’ve listed the changes and noticed he appears a few times before the act.
I’ve done it with no skills and a you tubed video. You can go straight to it and freeze it:
55″ , 56″ , 57″
1′ > 1’05”
1’24” >1’32”
1’38”
1’45” >1’52”
2’04” > 2’06”
2’09” > 2’10”
2’12”
2’20” > 2’21”
2’40” > 2’42”
Sorry for the lengthy list, didn’t knew how to put it. But you said it, ‘whoa’!
There was a commercial in British tv, a bet site, using real images, where the outcome of the same action finishes in two different ways. One before people bet and then the other once everyone has placed his bet. I thought it was weird that they were aloud to show how easy it is to manipulate the image.
I suppose it’s the same as sound, once it’s digitalized you can do whatever you want with the information. I actually use a soft (Metasynth), where each pixel is an oscillator.
Most of all , hope you’re ok and doing great.
Al Pacino and Arnold Schwarzenegger fakery is just as impressive.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKpH0CKltc73e4wh0_pgL3g
Scary stuff. Doesn’t bode well for us useless eaters.
Does everyone realize that old bastard is STILL! alive?…Henry Kissinger…he came up with the phrase – “Useless Eaters”.
A very good posting here.
Few things I want to point out, mainly because I have had some interest in evolution and genetics. First I want to say that I am certainly not a believer in mainstream Evolution. I think back to my AP Biology class and being the smartest guy in this class and still not being able to understand the experiment they tried to make us do to show how Evolution could work. All I remember is that I very deeply questioned some of the assumptions of this experiment, and the teacher (who was a very smart lady) didn’t really have any good explanation.
The one thing that stood out to me as an interesting theory written here is the idea that since there is no Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA this means that Homosapien males never bred with Neanderthal females. This is not necessarily so. Lineages have a very bad tendency to die out in the long run, with the determinant of which lineages end up surviving being more or less a function of random chance. Even some of the most powerful and virile Kings of history have had their direct genetic lines die out a few hundred years later. It could quite simply be that sex between human males and Neanderthal females was LESS common…and since the homo sapiens were obviously the ultimate Victors, there could have been a strong intentional selection (not natural selection) against those with Neanderthal mothers. I think your general assumptions are very good, but I just wanted to point out that there is this other explanation behind the lack of modern Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA.
The other thing I wanted to at least ask about was this concept of a “Silverback” Neanderthal. The fossil record dating back to when humans were called Australopithecus is a branching tree with a huge amount of variants from us truly just resembling animals and the Homo genus being not terribly different in appearance from modern humans. Some of the side-by-side imagery posted here looks like a human next to a gorilla when I am not exactly sure this would have really been the case. Neanderthals were bigger than us without question (and I think any assumption that they were afraid of us is definitely a joke), but they wouldn’t have been all that different from us in appearance.
Overall I really liked the article, and I think you make several good points that mainstream scientists would shy away from. It was definitely war from the get-go. The larger, hairier Neanderthal females may have been less attractive to the Homosapien males (and more able to put up a fight!), whereas for the hulking Neanderthal males, the petite homosapien females may have been more attractive and more submissive. That is not to say things didn’t ever happen in the other direction, only that there are no living ancestors from such an event. Interesting stuff!
“The larger, hairier Neanderthal females may have been less attractive to the Homosapien males ” LOL! .. it plays out in every form today with people, the woman just aren’t that hairy – usually 😀
Good post.
Has everyone noticed how David Attenborough (they have even knighted him) always strongly pushes the evolution wheel barrow?….he never mentions the words DESIGN or *Creation* – heaven forbid.
He thinks ( and he has verbalized )… all life sprang out of a mud pool from nothing, and by shear chance.
I hope Allan does more on the whole chromosome number thing because he’s right…it’s huge. I feel like one of the big secrets is that we humans were engineered.
Will do, but meanwhile maybe check out this past post:
http://blog.banditobooks.com/an-open-letter-to-michael-behe-stephen-meyer-and-douglas-axe/
I suggest you look a bit more deeply into mitochondrial DNA. I don’t mind that you disagree with Rutherford, but you are also disagreeing with the rest of the science of genomes. In point of fact, that out of many thousands (or tens of thousands or more, however many human genomes that have been run) no Neanderthal Mt DNA has showed up is pretty much all you need to know. You are wrong to say that the Neanderthal markers would fade out. Please look into it before you reply.
(I also don’t know why you claim that Neanderthals wouldn’t look much different from us. This is the mainstream view but my point is that there is no evidence – no preserved soft tissue, for example — that they did so. Given their environment, they were more likely as fur bearing as gorillas. Otherwise they would have frozen to death. No evidence of clothes, etc. I guess i have to repeat myself.)
There’s really no physical evidence of clothes for homo sapiens sapiens of this age either though because the clothes are readily decomposable, and there are plenty of homo sapiens sapiens peoples alive right now who don’t wear clothes. What does this have to do with physical anatomy? I am confused by this argument. I hear you, I just don’t get the connection you’re making there.
It is known that Neanderthal buried their dead. Their geographic position alone during ice ages is basically inherent proof that they must have worn clothes. They were artists, they buried their dead, yet the pictures in this article are of angry gorilla-looking creatures. That was my concern. The mainstream depiction might be roughly similar to us, but I am not sure this is a deception.
I do not buy into Darwinism as the true mechanism for evolution, and I think we are being kept in the dark about the true origin of our species, but I am not sure Neanderthal got a fair shake here. Homo sapiens sapiens also practiced cannibalism, pretty widely in earlier times. Everything you said…the war, the rape…is still possible even if Neanderthal wasn’t some gorilla-looking beast. We were pretty much savages back then too. Neanderthal might not have ever passed for a homo sapien, but I think those gorilla depictions are too far to the other end of the spectrum.
Last thing…I am not sure I see where my scenario of Neanderthal-mother derived lineages not surviving tens of thousands of years is irrefutably wrong. How is this less plausible than that such pairings never occurred? You’re saying if it happened once, it would have survived? Twice? 100 times? Such lines absolutely could have died out. I’m not saying Neanderthal female-homo sapiens male pairings were common, just that they don’t need to be assumed to be nonexistent. I can agree they would have to have been rare, but the homo sapiens would have won some of those battles and gotten the “spoils” of some of the wars too, right? The offspring just might have been outcasts.
I love the places you go in these articles and you are a great writer. I appreciate everything you are doing. Don’t get me wrong here. This is excellent content, and I feel like it is good practice to discuss it and trim the edges. There is plenty of meat here as a subject. Human origins…great stuff.
You say: ‘ Their geographic position alone during ice ages is basically inherent proof that they must have worn clothes.’
This is the mainstream logic. In fact they have found a lot of proof that sapiens wore clothes — like sewing needles plus the evolution of lice (look it up), yet no such evidence for neanderthals. Since the split between neanderthals and us was many millions of years ago (according to science), why would you assume they lost their hair, when NO OTHER primates did so? The skeletons of Neanderthals is closer to gorillas than us, so why not fur? Fer chrissakes, they evolved mostly in the ICE AGE and survived their for 100s of thousands of years! Don’t you think this tells us something about the subject?
In any event, as I said, please LOOK INTO the Mt DNA subject. Had there been mixing via human males as fathers, it would have showed up. If it happened once (in all of history) or even 100 times, that’s not really the point tho, is it? The point is the war that Vendramini writes about in his book. That is pretty inarguable, via the DNA evidence. IF YOU BELIEVE THE MS! Please keep this in mind. I’m assuming their basic paradigm is correct, for the sake of argument.
(Also keep in mind that the number of human genomes that have been sequenced is important here. I think it’s now in the millions. And as far as they’ve written about it, no Neanderthal DNA in the Mt DNA.)
Ice ages are one of those ‘Apollo’ grade deceptions.
Ice ages do not occur. There is no such thing. Earth’s overall temperature is extremely stable.
Ice cores do not indicate Earth’s temperature over thousands of years. They indicate the temperature at the location of the ice core.
Glaciers forming and receding are also determined by the local climate at the location of the glaciers – not the global temperature.
Hundreds of thousands of mammoths were happily eating lush vegetation in the temperate plains of Siberia – then Siberia suddenly got a tad chilly and all the mammoths froze on the spot – however, the Earth’s temperature did not change…
What in the hell are you talking about, Jerry? If you take ice cores all over the world… Where do you get your information from? It is incorrect.
No preserved soft tissue, but preserved bone markings where tendons attached allows for inferences. It’s part of how facial reconstructions are done by forensics.
Good point, probably ignored by everyone. 😉
These sounded like good points. How do the Denisovan fit in? Same type of argument?
More or less: Yes, but for now it’ll will complicate the subject.
I wonder if those really tall dinosaurs actually carried their neck and heads much lower, than is always shown stretched up to the max in pictures….because of the low blood pressure verses gravity problem.
There were many other problems with gravity as it is now. Look into it. (An animal with a neck that long and heavy could not have stretched it out horizontally either.)
Wow!, another VERY interesting and awesome post Allan.
It must have been constant Hell on earth way back, with these big beast’s tormenting the small humans.
I have always believed earth is an outpost testing ground of some sort, and humans were dumped here from somewhere, or some other planet.
We know chimpanzees rape & cannibalize too (how often I don’t know), it’s been filmed.
Chimps give me the creeps, I have heard of a few stories of them getting highly aggressive and nasty, and literally tearing their human victims faces off – their fave attack method.
Good point. It’s incredible that they tell us there was no strife between the two species. Borderline unbelievable. Thing is, most of them (the scientists) actually believe this crapola. In this case, I don’t think they’ve gotten together to lie to us. Pure doublethink.
There is another possibility. Horses and donkeys can produce offspring. The males are apparently sterile. Female mules (donkey father, horse mother) have sometimes produced offspring, but female hinnies (horse father, donkey mother) don’t.
There is another kind of critter (I forget which), where father A + mother B results in sterile offspring, but father B + mother A results in always-female, self-fertile daughters who don’t ever mate with anyone; they produce clones of themselves.
The point is that crosses in one direction (father A, mother B) are not always like crosses in the other (father B, mother A). Human father + Neanderthal mother might have been sterile.
I think you’re forgetting that we (all except Africans) have 2 – 4 % Neanderthal DNA, which is quite a lot, considering the time element. Or maybe I’m not getting your point.
My point is only that human-father/Neanderthal-mother crosses MIGHT not have been viable, and Neanderthal-father/human-mother crosses are what remain among us. The end result — what we have today — would look the same as “no” human-father/Neanderthal-mother crosses, there being no way to distinguish between “they didn’t mate” and “they mated but produced nothing”.
I made a similar statement about it being possible they occasionally mated in this direction but the lineages died out because such offspring were rare and outcasts. I find your conjecture about the offspring only being viable in one direction unlikely, but possible. No matter what, I think Allan’s conjecture is mainly on firm ground, but might be better framed as that the current 2% genetic remnants of Neanderthal without Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA means that mating was PREDOMINANTLY between Neanderthal males and homo sapiens females. This seems like a strong supposition, and it still backs the rest of the ideas about rape and warfare.
OK but I’m not sure there are other examples of that (other animals). Are you sure the horse-donkey stuff is correct? I have never heard that. Can you give us a link to that info?
I don’t have a link; I learned the mule-versus-hinny thing from my grandmother, who had a farm. I’m a gran myself now so she’s long gone and I can’t ask. I did look in wikipedia (they can’t fake *everything*, and they do correctly identify you as the author of Cosmic Banditos), fwiw.
The other one, about the self-fertile females — I’m pretty sure they were snails — came from an online discussion in an old Usenet forum. It wasn’t the only example but it was the most dramatic.
I can’t think how to put “are father-A/mother-B crosses always the same as father-B/mother-A crosses?” into a form my search engine can handle.
And it “should” (for what that’s worth) not be terribly uncommon, that the progeny have some differences depending on which species is the father & which the mother:
If (IF) DNA is the code for growing a new animal — well, code is useless by itself; it has to be “read” by something. The hardware for “reading” DNA software would be the egg. A PC won’t read a Mac program, kind of thing. That’s at least partly why most interspecies crosses won’t “run”. A chicken egg wouldn’t really develop dinosaur DNA.
But if the cross does run, it’s still the mother’s “hardware” that will interpret the “code”. Different maternal species -> different output of the code.
Homo sapiens has been on this planet for millions of years. The problem is, that the planet is inhospitable – in the sense it has a purge every dozen millennia (99.9% of surface life is erased) . There are many opportunities in which prior (technologically advanced) civilisations could have genetically tweaked h sapiens – and probably did…
I should have made it clearer that in the post I was assuming that mainstream origins is basically correct, which it clearly is not. My point is that they ‘can’t keep their story straight’ no matter how you look at it. I mean, just look at the work of Michael Cremo and you know MS science cannot be true.
I appreciate your articles and your perspective on HTWRW. One important element that appears to have not yet made it on your radar in understanding HTWRW; race. The truth about multiculturalism. Racial realism. There will be no figuring things out without understanding race and its massive impact on our lives and societies. I may have missed your previous work in this area, so forgive me if I am mistaken. What are your thoughts on the suppression of race-truth and how do we return our cultures to homogeneity?
Race is an interesting subject on many levels. I haven’t really gotten into it. Deserves some critical thought, yes, although it’s possible I may not agree with where you seem to be headed. Are you saying we should separate the races by force?
(I stopped listening to Red Ice Radio when they switched to… old fashion racism, altho the other end of the spectrum is even more annoying….)
I have always felt like there needs to be an understood difference between acknowledging that race is a real thing with real genetic advantages and disadvantages without saying that so and so race is superior. If we were to build a Nietzschian Superman, we would have to take from all races. How can one claim superiority?
Or more specifically, why do you think is homogeneity of races is preferable? To me, genetic mixture is generally a good thing. That is the part where you lose me.