Tuesday, 26 May 2015

Lies, Damned Lies, and Censorship - Archaeology Today!

Over the last four years since the publishing of my first book ‘The Stonehenge Enigma’ I have learnt much, including how to write in a style that suits my needs and not academia.

One of the most amazing lessons of this period was the intransigent nature of our institutions and academic universities that lead archaeological studies. Not only have they tried to ignore my research at first they then ‘censored’ my work by not allowing paid adverts in their journals and periodicals. They claim it's down to the practice of 'peer-review', but the truth is that they do not want you to know the truth or had their judgement questioned.

Censored
Failed to report the 'Patch marks' at Avebury and told the advertising staff that  they 'refused to discuss the subject'
Censorship issues
Refused my paid advertisements and failed to report the 'Patches' at Avebury

Recently in my investigations of ancient sites, I have found clear archaeological evidence in the form of ‘patch marks’ over a hill overlooking Avebury, which would suggest a Stone Avenue that preceded the famous West Kennet Avenue. The established institutions were all sent the press releases with all the relevant details that such a major finding should include, but they decided not to inform their membership or readers of this discovery.

Such blind censorship does nothing for the science of archaeology. Even if they disagree with my interpretation of these patch marks, the fact they existed and was not reported clearly shows that any evidence that does not support the current establishment theories or ideas is suppressed. Fortunately, social media is now available to spread such discoveries, and half a million people viewed the Daily Mail article, and thousands visited my web site to view the animation of this Stone Avenue.

Now I understand that the establishment does not like the fact that ‘Prehistoric Britain’ trilogy re-writes world history and how we perceived the past and therefore, by its very nature many would be difficult to accept. For how can the academic institutions get it so wrong with such a resource and staffing?

It is a simple question, which unfortunately has a complicated answer. However, I’m not the first to question the integrity of our establishment, well known journalists and editors have started to ask such direct questions such as Richard Horton, Editor In Chief Of World’s Best-Known Medical Journal - The Lancet, who wrote in April 2015: 

Richard Horton
Richard Horton

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”

And he is not the only dissenting voice in academia. Linus Pauling, Ph.D, and two-time Nobel Prize winner in chemistry (1901-1994) had also been writing on this subject:
Censorship issues
Linus Pauling

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine”

Fortunately, Pauling goes on to tell us why the institutions are lying to us and peddling this nonsense propaganda

“When you have power you don’t have to tell the truth. That’s a rule that’s been working in this world for generations. And there is a great many people who don’t tell the truth when they are in power in administrative positions.”

And in the field of Medicine, this can have disastrous consequences.

“Fluoride causes more human cancer deaths than any other chemical. It is some of the most conclusive scientific and biological evidence that I have come across in my 50 years in the field of cancer research.”

So is this man deluded or a fraud and why have you not heard or seen this evidence before – remembering this is a two-time Nobel Prize winner in chemistry?

George Orwell

It’s all to do with money and control.  “Those who control the present, control the past and those who control the past control the future.” ― George Orwell, 1984

But this is just two prominent academics who have spoken out on this subject there are many more such as Professor John P. A. Ioannidis:
John Ioannids

"False positives and exaggerated results in peer-reviewed scientific studies have reached epidemic proportions in recent years. The problem is rampant in economics, the social sciences and even the natural sciences, but it is particularly egregious in biomedicine. Many studies that claim some drug or treatment is beneficial have turned out not to be true. We need only look to conflicting findings about beta-carotene, vitamin E, hormone treatments, Vioxx and Avandia. Even when effects are genuine, their true magnitude is often smaller than originally claimed.

The problem begins with the public’s rising expectations of science. Being human, scientists are tempted to show that they know more than they do. The number of investigators—and the number of experiments, observations and analyses they produce—has also increased exponentially in many fields, but adequate safeguards against bias are lacking. Research is fragmented, competition is fierce and emphasis is often given to single studies instead of the big picture.

Much research is conducted for reasons other than the pursuit of truth. Conflicts of interest abound, and they influence outcomes. In health care, research is often performed at the behest of companies that have a large financial stake in the results. Even for academics, success often hinges on publishing positive findings. The oligopoly of high-impact journals also has a distorting effect on funding, academic careers and market shares. Industry tailors research agendas to suit its needs, which also shapes academic priorities, journal revenue and even public funding.

The crisis should not shake confidence in the scientific method. The ability to prove something false continues to be a hallmark of science. But scientists need to improve the way they do their research and how they disseminate evidence."

Bauerlein et al. (2010) claim that we are currently experiencing an ‘avalanche of low-quality research’, and academia has become an environment where ‘aspiring researchers are turned into publish-or-perish entrepreneurs, often becoming more or less cynical about the higher ideals of the pursuit of knowledge’. Whether the current state of affairs is better or worse than before, it seems reasonable to assume that corner-cutting is an unfortunate side effect of publication pressure and competition for academic positions and scarce resources, especially in milieus where counting publications is more important than reading and evaluating them. 

In his book Derailed, about his fall from academic grace, the Dutch psychologist Diederik Stapel explained his preferred method for manipulating scientific data in detail that would make any nerd's jaw drop:

Censorship issues
Diederik Stapel
"I preferred to do it at home, late in the evening... I made myself some tea, put my computer on the table, took my notes from my bag, and used my fountain pen to write down a neat list of research projects and effects I had to produce.... Subsequently I began to enter my own data, row for row, column for column...3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 4, 5, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 5, 4, 3, 3, 2. When I was finished, I would do the first analyses. Often, these would not immediately produce the right results. Back to the matrix and alter data. 4, 6, 7, 5, 4, 7, 8, 2, 4, 4, 6, 5, 6, 7, 8, 5, 4. Just as long until all analyses worked out as planned."

In 2011, when Stapel was suspended over research fraud allegations, he was a rising star in social psychology at Tilburg University in the Netherlands. He had conducted attention-grabbing experiments on social behaviour, looking at, for example, whether litter in an environment encouraged racial stereotyping and discrimination. Yet that paper — and at least 55 others, as well as 10 dissertations written by students he supervised — were built on falsified data.

If you perpetuate a lie in academia it spreads like wild-fire as the 'peer-review' system accepts it as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - except its a lie!

So those (non-academics) who dare question the establishment, they are banished into a self-protectionist oblivion – or the establishment tries to discredit their work and make it disappear. As Gandhi once warned the world: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win”

gandhi
Gandhi

This second book in the trilogy 'Dawn of the Lost Civilisation' (out in the Autumn) is my ‘fight back’ – I will not be silenced, and the truth of about humanity and who built our ancient monuments will be known.  

Thursday, 14 May 2015

Rivers in the past were larger than today - not a revelation just good old fashioned common sense!!

by
Robert John Langdon

Some four years ago, I launched the first book of my trilogy 'Prehistoric Britain' called The Stonehenge Enigma, to mixed reviews.  The original book was crammed with statistics and geological concepts like 'isostatic transformations' as I wanted to show scientific evidence of how groundwater could have been higher in the past flooding our landscape.

Rivers larger in the past - diagram
Fig 1. River Evolution - Standard model (Larger in the past than today!!)
This attempt to convince the academic world that our history was fundamentally flawed failed because the 'experts' were unable to understand the simple concept of the argument - 'that rivers were higher in the past'.  Famous archaeologists such as Julian Richards suggested the flooding I proposed was caused by raised 'sea levels' rather than the groundwater in the hypothesis and termed the picture on the front cover of the book - 'Stonehenge-on-sea', in an attempt to discredit the information.

Rivers larger in the past - terraces
Fig 2. The River Avon's terraces - bigger in the past!!
Mike Parker-Pearson literally  'runaway' from me when we meet (by chance) on his Bluestone dig and I explained how his site must have been occupied AFTER the construction of Stonehenge as it was located immediately by the river Avon unlike Stonehenge, and so would have been under water at the time of Stonehenge's construction - which was the last thing he wanted to hear as he had been telling people it was pre-Stonehenge (which subsequent carbon dating have proved me to be correct).

My hypothesis in layman's terms is very simple (as in most sound fundamental scientific ideas) - RIVERS IN THE PAST WERE LARGER THAN TODAY

Rivers larger in the past - terraces 2
Fig 3. Lower Thames - towards the sea

It's not rocket science and you don't need a PHd to understand the principle behind it - yet the archaeological world refuses even to discuss the matter.  On previous blogs I have shown how both British Archaeology and Current Archaeology magazines REFUSED MONEY and place my adverts within their magazines, with Current Archaeology finally admitting that they 'did not wish to discuss the issue' - academic censorship prevailed.

Rivers larger in the past - terraces 3
Fig 4. How the terraces look on a geological Map (looking down)
Clearly all of the Geological evidence shows that 'rivers were bigger in the past' - this is undeniable, so what is the problem with the academics?

The argument revolves around the 'dates' attributed to the terraces - pure and simple.  Now I not suggesting that these terraces were all 'formed' after the last ice age, that would be foolish.  What my hypothesis states is that they were 'last full with water' after the last ice age and remained full for thousands of years thereafter.  And to show this use Britain's largest and most famous River the Thames for this purpose.


From the Picture (Fig 3.) you see the Thames dropped 40m in just 10k years that's about 0.4cm per annum and we know that this river system is recent as the Thames emptied into the North Sea in Suffolk prior to this ice age - so this asks fundamental questions which Geologist have failed to answer:


  • If the Thames was 40m higher at the start of the Mesolithic Period (directly after the last Ice Age) where did all the extra water come from?

  • If the extra water was from the melting of the glacial ice (that melted quickly - according to Geologists) why are there TEN terraces on the Avon (according to Maddy et al 2000) rather than one?

  • How long does a river need to be at a certain level before it develops a terrace - and if the water ran away at a constant rate and did not settle - why are there any terraces anyway?

  • If we can see that these rivers were larger in the past, why would not the same process that created these higher rivers (from the melting ice of an ice age) not be duplicated during the last ice age?

  • And finally, if the Thames was 40m higher in the recent past wouldn't the other rivers that feed the Thames even today (like the Kennet and Avon) also 40m higher as they would also have access to the same water source?


Rivers larger in the past - Thames
The Thames Today

Rivers larger in the past - Thames 2
The Thames at the Start of the Mesolithic

If we now go back to today's river levels and increase the Avon by 40m like the Thames - look what happens.

Rivers larger in the past - Stonehenge
The Avon is about 65m above sea level near Stonehenge add another 40m and its 105m and turns Stonehenge into a peninsula
This increase in the size of the rivers flooding the landscape in comparison to today is what I call 'Post Glacial Flooding' and is the basis of my hypothesis.  If geologists know that 'an ice age' cut the higher levels of our existing rivers in the past, why do we assume that the last ice age did not do the same - what evidence is there that the last ice age was any 'smaller' and not fill these rivers just as they did in previous ice ages?  Surely, the fact that terraces exist must make us conclude that the river height must have remained constant for a considerable time, during this process to make these terrace - so it would be impossible for these rivers to disappear after the ice age quickly.

But is this really rocket science or just plain old 'common sense' ?

And why are the academics so afraid to discuss this work to such an extent they censored my findings?

I'll let you the reader (and there's now been over a million of you) decide the likely truth of the matter!!


Saturday, 2 May 2015

Woolly Mammoths - yet more proof of a post ice age marine civilisation

By Robert John Langdon

The proof of my hypothesis can be found in many hundreds of small articles or clues found as 'throw away' pieces on the internet.  The one that caught my eye this week in the national newspapers was "Mammoths DNA shows inbreeding".  The problem with these populist headlines aimed at the general population, is that they are not as they seem.

wooly mammoth and man
Size comparison

Harvard Medical School geneticist Eleftheria Palkopoulou said the genomes indicated two major population crashes: one around 280,000 years ago from which the population recovered, and a second about 12,000 years ago, near the Ice Age's end, from which it did not.


After the second one, an estimated 300 to 1,000 mammoths survived. A small Wrangel Island population existed for about 6,000 years after all mainland mammoths had died. The inbreeding probably harmed the population's viability and contributed to its extinction, Dalén said.



wrangel island
Small island in the middle of nowhere!
I'm sure that on this small island 'inbreeding' could have possibly wiped out that little population but the island is frozen for half the year so moving to the mainland was quite possible.  Moreover, what about Eurasia and American Woolly's did cthey ran away to Wrangle Island?  This original 'clear cut' headline does not hold water!

Wrangel from space
You could walk from the island to the mainland if you wished!
So is their another more 'informed' reason for the change in DNA?

For an answer to this, lets look at what happened the the woolly in America just after the ice age.

Big Love: Woolly Mammoths, Huge Elephants May Have Interbred 

(Journal Genome Biology, May 2011) 

The woolly mammoth may surprisingly have regularly interbred with a completely different and much larger elephant species, researchers now find.

Woolly mammoths (Mammuthus primigenius) roamed the planet for roughly 250,000 years, ranging from Europe to Asia to North America. Nearly all of these giants vanished from Siberia by about 10,000 years ago, although dwarf mammoths survived on Wrangel Island in the Arctic Ocean until 3,700 years ago.

Although woolly mammoths lived in the cold of the tundra, the Columbian mammoth (Mammuthus columbi) preferred the more temperate regions of southern and central North America. The Columbians were much larger than woollies, with Columbian males reaching one-and-a-half to two times that of woolly males.

"We are talking about two very physically different species here," said researcher Hendrik Poinar, an evolutionary geneticist at McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada. "You have roughly 1 million years of separation between the two, with the Columbian mammoth likely derived from an early migration into North America approximately 1.5 million years ago, and their woolly counterparts emigrating to North America some 400,000 years ago."

Poinar and his colleagues investigated the evolution of Columbian mammoths by analyzing DNA retrieved from the tusks, bone and teeth of two approximately 11,000-year-old fossil specimens, one found in the Huntington Reservoir in Utah and the other found near Rawlins, Wyo. The researchers concentrated on the genomes of the mitochondria, the "powerhouses" of the cells, which have their own unique DNA and are inherited from the mother.

Surprisingly, they discovered the mitochondrial genome of the Columbian mammoth was nearly indiscernible from that of its northern woolly counterparts. [Album: 25 Amazing Ancient Beasts]

"At first I thought, 'Oh crap, there's contamination of some sort,'" Poinar said.

However, any minor contamination they found could not explain the extensive genetic evidence they uncovered, and they replicated their results in an independent lab. "I think we were very lucky," Poinar told LiveScience.

"We think we may be looking at a genetic hybrid," said researcher Jacob Enk, a graduate student in the McMaster Ancient DNA Center.

When glacial times got nasty, woollies likely moved to more pleasant conditions southward, where they came into contact with the Columbian mammoths.

"Living African elephant species hybridize where their ranges overlap, with the bigger species out-competing the smaller for mates," Enk added. The offspring are perfectly fertile, Poinar added.

Since woollies and Columbians overlapped in time and space, it is not unlikely that they interbred in much the same manner.

"It reminds me a bit of high-school days — the larger males are more successful at meeting women across the dance floor than the rest of us," Poinar said.

These findings could explain why some mammoth fossils had features intermediate between woollies and Columbians, although the genomes of both species should be sequenced to tell for sure. The researchers also want to look at Columbian mammoth specimens from farther south where no woollies ever ventured, to get an idea of what nonhybrid samples might look like.

So is it possible that the change of genomes in Eurasian Mammoths are actually down to cross-breeding rather than 'inbreeding'?

If so - how did the elephants get from Africa or/and Asia (more accurately the far east!!).  Moreover, Elephant bones are found in Northern Europe (including Doggerland) as well as in America - sadly these bones are incorrectly dated not by carbon dating but by assumption (that well known Scientific technique!!)

So unless they got lost and walked to America or Britain, someone brought them from African if not India in a ship - So who are they?

Well what other prehistoric 'megalithic builders' do we know that sailed the four corners of the Earth just after the last Ice Age - The Cro-Magnons and this same sequence of animal usage and extinction is seen in Mammoths, Horses, Dogs and sabre toothed Tigers we will detail in our next book 'Dawn of the Lost Civilisation' out soon.