I’m in the midst of an essay on the chromosome number issue, and it’s turning out very interesting. This is still another one of those deals they just do not want to talk about, notwithstanding its blatant relevance and in-your-face obviousness. That is, assuming you care about human origins. Anyway, I’m interrupting it to send you this…
I heard from The Seven Daughters of Eve author Bryan Sykes after sending him a link (via a website he’s associated with) to my ‘Human Origins, More Lies‘ post. Although Sykes did not respond directly to my email address, his associate put his words in quotes, so we can assume they are his. Although he could easily have sent his response directly to me — no time was saved by having ‘Hilary’ send it — I suspect he didn’t want me to be able to reply directly, for reasons that will be obvious, i.e., although he in effect admitted that everything I wrote was accurate, he failed to deal with the implications.
Where I am now.
Here’s my second email (the bold segment is important):
Dear Mr. Sykes,
If you received my email from August 15 and read my essay, you
should know that I will be correcting my error in dating ‘The 7
Daughters of Eve’ from 2017. The audio book was dated this way so
I assumed the book itself was of that date. Since I am an author
with two books in audio I should have known better.
Point being, when you wrote the book you did not know about the 2
– 4% (closer to 2%) we carry in our genomes. On the other hand, as
a nonfiction writer myself, I would think you should have updated
the audio and the Kindle versions of the book — plus any later printings — since the
information is so vital to our history.
I’ll be doing a follow up to my blog essay and would ask you to
respond to my first post on the subject (notwithstanding the
dating error to be corrected). Again, here is the
link: http://blog.banditobooks.com/human-origins-more-lies/
I also apologize for spelling your first name incorrectly.
If I am incorrect in saying that sex between Neanderthals and
sapiens was strictly male Neanderthals and female sapiens, please
explain the fault in my reasoning. If I am correct, please explain
how I am wrong in assuming that the sex was (virtually always)
rape and there must have been an interspecies war that lasted for
thousands of years.
Allan
About a half hour ago.
As you will notice in Sykes’s response, he does not correct the above bold observations/conclusions. He in fact offers data that support them:
Dear Mr Weisbecker
I have spoken to Professor Sykes who is away from Oxford at the
moment. He sends this message [my emphasis]:
‘You may appreciate that the Seven Daughters of Eve was published
in 2001 and as you acknowledge [means he read my essay] a lot has changed since then.
The basic framework of the book remains intact.
The contribution of Neandertahl genes is puzzling since among the
hundreds of thousands of mitochondrial sequences tested, none has
been Neanderthal. There are possible explanations for this but it
must also be the case that it is most surprising not to find
Neanderthal mitochondrial sequences in such a large sample of
modern Homo sapiens.
I am sure you will cover this in your writing’. [A wry acknowledgement that he did read my essay]
Kind regards
Last night.
A couple interesting aspects to his response, aside from the fact that he responded at all. It never ceases to amaze me when someone whom I have busted outright in either incomprehensible ignorance/stupidity or deceit and misdirection — and done so in a blatantly accusatory fashion — reacts without offering a defense, and without rancor.
He writes, ‘The basic framework of the book remains intact.’ What could he possibly mean by ‘intact’ when he got all the important points either wrong or didn’t get them at all?
That we humans have 2 – 5% Neanderthal DNA in our genome (which is a shit load considering how far back in time the inter-species miscegenation goes) without a scrap in our mitochondrial DNA — and, again, notice he does not correct me on this — means that all that sex was between Neanderthal males and sapiens females only. He in fact corroborates my findings by himself emphasizing the huge number of modern human genomes that have been sequenced without finding evidence of Neanderthals in the mitochondrial DNA. (Again, this indicates the one-way sex.)
At night I tend to lie in the hammock and gaze at this.
Notice also that he finds the above ‘puzzling.’ Assuming he’s not lying (and I actually don’t think he is), being ‘puzzled’ means that in spite of my having spelled out for him what the one-way sex means (thousands of generations of rape and war), this hot-shot Oxford-trained scholar continues to live in denial about our ancestors’ horrendous relationship with our closest known cousins.
Addendum: Keep in mind that neanderthal genome was sequenced around 2010, so Sykes has known everything I know for nine years. Yet in all his lectures and writings since then he’s never told you what I have. So the date of publication of his book is actually irrelevant.
Or he is lying, and knows perfectly well what the data mean and is following orders in keeping his mouth shut. (The truth would complicate if not discredit the Neo-Darwinian lie we’re supposed to believe.) If this is the case, though, he sure did a piss-poor job of it. I mean, if deceit was his agenda (in replying), why not at least attempt misdirection, say, via the method used by some of you: maybe by going off on the tangent of what Neanderthals looked like?
He’s fucking puzzled! Amazing isn’t it? I mean that he’s puzzled, while a (formally) uneducated wandering septuagenarian half way to dementia isn’t puzzled at all?
Anyway, thought you might be interested in some direct, horse’s-mouth evidence that my essay ‘Human Origins, More Lies,’ is correct in it’s conclusions about our ancestry.
Meanwhile, here’s another ‘sky-vid,’ which I jazzed up a bit.
Allan
Here’s an old Electric Universe Space News that shows just how off the wall modern astrophysics really is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScZFq0p3O8k
99.9% of the physics/cosmology videos (say) on Youtube are utter, complete nonsense, including the Einsteinian relativity crapola. This is just the way it is, folks. Subscribe to the Thunderbolts Project Space News – and go back over them — and within a few months (and assuming you pay attention) you will have the equivalent of a ‘real’ P.H.d. in astrophysics.
By the way, here’s evidence that I pay attention to what’s going on overhead at night:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qg4qv_DHno&feature=youtu.be
The stars are spectacular on steroids from the edge of space at least.
Described here > https://youtu.be/LaUCMzgidvs
The earth is huge, and using our scale model (1mm = 1 klm) , you would have to well above it to see the full ball….yep, at least 1000+klms.
Allan, re. the new sky-vid in this blog entry: are you camped close to an airport? I noted a bright light make a looping turn almost directly overhead…
Can you give a time stamp? I don’t see it.
Yeah, it’s at approximately the 18 second mark – it’s not directly overhead but a bit below the middle of the frame…
Allan, that picture of you called “last night” demonstrates what I claimed previously, that you can’t have details of the satellite (the Moon in your picture) and the stars together. The Moon is blindingly bright, right? If you make a picture of the moon with some details on it using shorter exposure, the stars will be gone.
As for Mr. Sykes’ and your ideas of sex some hundreds of thousands years ago based on supposedly found DNA similarities, I have a question. If our DNA is 99.9% equal to mice, cats and cattle, does it mean, humans raped all them too?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/human-dna-share-cats-cattle-mice-same-genetics-code-a8292111.html
actually, this 99.9% refers to other humans, my bad, yet still, this 2-5% similar DNA found in humans and neanderthals is nothing compared to 60% similarities found in DNA of humans and bananas. And why in my link don’t they mention the mitochondrial and nuclear DNA but coding and non-coding DNA? Didn’t they get the memo?
Re your first paragraph, are you saying that NASA doesnt fake photos? How about the Pale Blue Dot? Where are the stars in that one? Have you seen my star visibility videos? How do you explain the constant dead black sky and the astronauts saying you can’t SEE stars?
I don’t understand the rest of your comment, and wonder why I should explain a mainstream link’s errors. (Your other comment)
Thank you for staying on topic.
Allan, I don’t disagree with you that NASA’s pictures are fakes, the most of them for sure. It’s just, that the missing stars argument is worthless. And I just pointed you to one of your own pictures. If there are stars visible, there are no details of the Moon surface. The Moon on your picture is blindingly bright, no? If you get the craters and shadows on the picture, the stars will be gone. The same applies to satellites. If you see the details of the satellites, you can’t see the stars, and vice versa. Your stars videos are made of series of long exposure pics. Any satellite on them would look like a bright spot without any details visible. Why do I have to repeat that every time? Don’t you pay attention? And what about this topic and the fact, that 60% of our DNA can be found in the DNA of bananas? How weak do the 2-5% Neanderthal DNA found in our DNA look then? And how did they get any comparable DNA out from old stony bones? The comparison needs lots of long parts of DNA called chromosomes. When they extract DNA from fluids, they have to break the cells chemically, purify the content, then purify it again, all the time using chemicals and what they get is another fluid supposedly containing pure DNA. Then it is further destroyed chemically until they get, what they call “microsatellites” and which are parts of parts of parts of DNA. Then this microsatellites are concentrated and sorted using a gel medium and electricity and what they get is a strip pattern, which never looks the same. Even if you use the same sample twice. How did they do it with old stony bones, which have no cellular structure anymore? Their “silica-based purification method” is a joke. If this “provides accurate analysis of DNA on a small scale” (wiki) why not using it on fluids too? The procedure does not require the probe to be a stony bone. Why bother plying with fluids the complicated way if you can get what you need simply by silica adsorption? It’s cheaper, easier and much faster. Don’t get me wrong here. This stories are all fake. This is not science, it’s being continually invented by scientific writers. It’s based on fantasy not on research. Lots of people get very well paid to do this things. But hey, lots of priests make their living doing Masses and such. It’s basically the same thing, no?
It’s wierd how NASA artists always include stars in the backgrounds of their ‘impressions’, but NASA photos never do.
It’s also wierd how Apollo astronauts never saw any stars in space no matter in which direction they looked.
And all ‘blue marble’ photos are fake (or composite).
Anyone still pushing the idea that photographic cameras are incapable of resolving stars (outside of Earth’s atmosphere) has a bit of a ‘shill’ smell about them.
Maybe every commenter should be required to state at the beginning of their comment: “Stars are visible in space, but because the staged Apollo footage didn’t show any (too difficult to simulate), NASA has had to remove them from its LEO photos ever since”.
wrong logic. To prove that pics from space are fakes you cannot use the missing stars argument because on real pics there also wouldn’t be any stars visible because the contrast aspect which is valid here on earth will also be valid in space. Atmosphere just takes some of the brightness away. It does not influence the contrast. Astronauts are Astronots or Actornauts. They’ve never been in space and it doesn’t matter what they say that they saw. We cannot prove that all the blue marble pics are fakes. The older ones may be. Today we have technology necessary to make pics digitally we then can resend electronically from satellites back to Earth. It wasn’t possible in the past. Also making wide angle pictures from Helium balloons could be sufficient enough to show the entire Earth. Your last argument is also logically wrong. There is no need to pretend that stars cannot be photographed today because they could not be photographed back then in the Apollo time. The real reason is the contrast which is the distance between the darkest and the brightest objects you want to photograph.
“Also making wide angle pictures from Helium balloons could be sufficient enough to show the entire Earth.”
Your spatial reasoning skills* are a tad lacking when it comes to photography.
This is why, when orbiting the Earth in LEO, the astronauts were seen trying to make a small circular template over their porthole to fake the Earth as it would be seen from well above LEO.
A wide-angle lens distorts the image (as if further away), it doesn’t extract more peripheral information from the object being viewed – as would be obtained if truly further away.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_intelligence_(psychology)
Why NASA artists create their “impressions” in the first place!? It makes sense only if they are unable to take real pictures or lie abut outer space. IMHO both.
Apollo astronauts never saw any stars in space, because they never went to space. It is difficult for most people to see through lies and deception, overcome mental programming and fear and finally realize that Apollo is nothing more than a stupid lie. But based on hard facts there is no doubt about it (lost 4000 pcs of magnetic tapes with telemetric data, shreded technical documentation of LEM and Saturn V, Hasselblad cameras had no radiation protection so every single photo from Moon have to be fake, deadly radiation and heat from Sun, micrometeorites, unable to fly back for 50 years, it is nonsence in almost every detail, the list is very long).
‘blue marble’ photos are heavily photoshoped composites, NASA is clear about it. Why they create Blue Marble composites in recent years anyway!? One has to be at least 1000 km above Earth and move head from very left to very right to see the whole ball. To photograph whole Earth you have to be even farther. There is no such a photo of Earth publically available on Internet, I have been searching hard for years. Last but not least there should be lots of videos.
What makes you sure “Stars are visible in space”? Do you mean visible in visible spectrum to human eye?
First, Barbara, Jerry is quite right about your lacking spatial sense. To get the whole (50% facing us) earth in a photo you have to be many 10s of thousands of miles away, no matter the lens. A balloon wouldn’t do it. I’d look it up and give a link but you should do it.
Second, please quote my words when I said man has definitely been to the moon (via advanced craft). See how I phrase it. The reason I say this is POSSIBLE is b/c it appears that SOMEONE is flying around breaking the KNOWN laws of physics by hovering with no sound or apparent propulsion and making IMPOSSIBLE turns and accelerations. If you think this is all a psy op or hallucinations, it’s been going on for about 100 years, with too many people from too many diverse backgrounds, plus FOIA documents, etc etc. for it to be fake. (Someone also misquoted me by leaving out the ‘known’ when I referenced the laws of physics — another straw man attempt. Hence my capping ‘KNOWN’ above, i.e., to make it harder to mislead about what I said.)
The length of time (say, since WW 2 and not ‘100 years’) also would seem to negate the use of holograms, etc. Before you say something you’ll regret, please do some research on UFOs. You can start with Dolan, although there are dozens of others, whose citations are impressive.
I am curious why you would put untrue words in my mouth — like i said ‘men have been to the moon’ without making clear my real (agnostic) belief on the subject. You then go on to show how dumb I am for believing that, when in reality you are debunking a straw man (since I only say it’s POSSIBLE).
Allan, you said:”It’s very possible that humans have been up there, and probably collected all kinds of stuff.” How can this be possible?
I’ve never seen any weird flying objects, hoovering or not. All videos of flying saucers, UFO’s, etc. look as fake to me as the NASA videos.
Other than that, all we have are fairy tales not different from the many Holy Mary manifestations.
I saw a burning meteorite once or maybe it was a falling satellite. My theory is, that satellites are much cheaper as suggested. They just shoot one after another to replace the fallen ones.
https://www.businessinsider.de/ungewoehnlicher-himmelskoerper-ueber-sueddeutschland-gesichtet-2017-11
I was just waiting for a bus at the train station and it lasted for a few seconds only and I didn’t have the time to grab my phone and take a picture. This I saw with my own eyes though.
I don’t even believe in that Zapata Flyboard. There is this water powered version of it also supposedly invented by Zapata and it was supposed to be in the place in Egypt where we spend one of our recent holidays but I didn’t witness any flying tourists there. All we have are youtube videos and this is not reliable to me.
“…missing stars argument is worthless…” “Why do I have to repeat that every time?”
Barbara, try to answer fundamental question, please. I wrote you previously that your argument regarding brightness/exposure difficulty is valid in most cases. But I do believe you can imagine situations _without too bright objects in a photographed scene_ and therefore without exposure problem (example: A camera directed into deep space, situated _above_ Earth atmosphere, in Earth shadow, Sun and Moon are out of view.). If visible light from stars exists above Earth atmosphere than photos with visible stars must exist (and must be nothing less than S P E C T A C U L A R !!!).
Regarding DNA, neanderthals you made a good point in my opinion. It looks like “invented by scientific writers”. Assumptions based on speculations based on suppositions, based on … Allan is building his opinion on the basis of mainstream science, which is often misleading, multilayered deception and distraction from thruth (looks very risky to me). Just like nuclear weapons – it is pointless to discuss who, how, why made A bombs, once we know it is all fantasy based on false nuclear physics and invented nuclear forces.
The deception is very deep, even on language level. There were 5 different system of writing in area of today Czech Republic in last 1000 years I was told in school (the point is that newer generations cannot read old texts). See old russian alphabet (it had 49 letters!) and compare it with today english alphabet (only 26 letters). Also Russian and Czech grammar was and still is more advanced and _precise_ than english one. How can it be possible?
In answer to Marion P’s last question: I assume stars are visible in space b/c they are visible on earth at night and get brighter as you rise toward space. If they are not visible from space, we have to imagine them getting brighter and brighter as we ascend, then, suddenly, they blink out. This does not seem reasonable.
exactly Allan, why assume something we can observe through the atmosphere won’t be observable without it? It still is an assumption of course since no one was ever there. As for my wide angle argument, a high resolution fish eye can photograph the entire sky and with software you’ll get the curvature corrected. Some security cameras work that way. We also have TV satellites on geostationary orbit some 36000km away. Yes, they are real and you can even photograph them. Allen you could do it for sure, because you often stay in places without light pollution. Just use a tripod, some zoom and long exposure and point the camera to where the dishes in the neighborhood are pointed. The stars will become lines and the satellites will stay dots. From that distance it should be possible to make nice pictures of the Earth. But my main point here is, we simply cannot exclude this as possibility due lack of convincing arguments. Not so with the fake space walks, fake cars in space, etc. This was easy do debunk.
Just like a city removes stars from visibility, so might the sun. One must also think about the eyeball….Ya know the eyeball…it’s above the pyramid…
In some cases you’re right but the stars should still be ‘there’ in the sense that with photo shop you could bring them back, which you cannot do with NASA photos. That the astronauts say they can’t SEE stars is proof of fraud — i have no trouble seeing stars at night even with the atmosphere. How about you? Why no mention of the Pale Blue Dot? why cherry pick around that question?
I believe sometimes even scholars deeply embedded and accommodated to the matrix have their clear moments. I mean, when they realize their thoughts and conclusions go against the “party line”, and if they publish it – or even speak it out – they are done. It might take some more generations to ingrain Orwellian Doublethink fully in human consciousness …
This seems to be the case with Mr. Sykes. The fact that he or his assistant answered you at all (and not denying anything) is an admission you are mostly correct. I think you won’t get more from him.
To you and Todd: he didn’t answer me directly b/c he didn’t want me to have his email; follow up questions would have made him squirm.
I’m impressed you got ANY response. As you pointed out, he SHOULD have known about this since 2010 and agree with you that he corroborates your research by any real lack of a rebuttal or outright misdirection. Strange that it came from his associate, assistant, or whomever it was – and why the silence from him on it’s implications now and over the years, I wonder… But when is HE going to cover this in HIS writing!?! You shouldn’t have to be doing this if he was truly onboard with the truth and all.
Did you know that academics are still developing theories concerning the solar system by incorporating findings from lunar surface samples?
Number one, does this have anything whatever to do with this post? Number two, since your information goes nowhere, i.e., is meaningless, why are you distracting us with it? Did you not get my many warnings about irrelevant comments?
Please do not answer. Just quit commenting if you have nothing to say.
Just as you did ‘a Walter’ when you decided not to accept evidence that nuclear weapons and power stations were a hoax, you are accepting all paleontology as if nothing within it could possibly be fraudulent – as if fraud must be unthinkable.
That was my point about people spending years on research where they’ve accepted lunar samples as the bedrock to their conclusions.
You know that no lunar samples have ever been collected.
When you understand why the Apollo missions were faked, you’ll understand why much of paleontology has been molded (falsified) to fit a particular story.
I appreciate that you do not want this answer, but then some other readers might find it illuminating…
I had not made the connection – or leap – of logic you were making. I tend to agree with it, now that I understand it, although I have never stated that man has never been to the moon; just not via Apollo. It’s very possible that humans have been up there, and probably collected all kinds of stuff.
On the other hand, then why didn’t they plant ‘proof’ of Apollo while they were about it? I have no answer to this.
Allan, the only claim that humans went to the Moon come from NASA and their evidence was proved wrong beyond any doubts, no? No one else ever claimed to land humans on the moon. Why are you assuming this? Do you assume a cappuccino cup circulates the Sun between Mars and Jupiter? Nobody claimed to send one there. Why assume it then? I’m joking a little bit here. No ofence please. You cannot prove the negative. It is the one who claims changes in the status quo who has to provide the evidence.
2-5 % is not evenly distributed.
The further from the caucasus mountains, the less %.
A german assistant in the Max Plank institute dropped that in an interview some years ago.
Can’t find that anymore.
You can ask WhiteRabbitradio.net for more info.
Maybe he remembers how to find it.
Since you can’t back this up and since it’s not really relevant anyway (so what? kinda thing)… see my previous comment to Pete.