Hiding Humanity's True History
'The Brain Police' and 'The Big Lie'
By Will Hart
© 2002 Wrtsearch1@aol.com
Extracted from Nexus Magazine
Volume 9, Number 3
April-May 2002
4-8-2
Any time you allege a conspiracy is afoot, especially in the field of
science, you are treading on thin ice. We tend to be very sceptical
about conspiracies--unless the Mafia or some Muslim radicals are behind
the alleged plot. But the evidence is overwhelming and the irony is that
much of it is in plain view.
The good news is that the players are obvious. Their game plan and even
their play-by-play tactics are transparent, once you learn to spot them.
However, it is not so easy to penetrate through the smokescreen of
propaganda and disinformation to get to their underlying motives and
goals. It would be convenient if we could point to a plumber's unit and
a boldface liar like Richard Nixon, but this is a more subtle operation.
The bad news: the conspiracy is global and there are many vested
interest groups. A cursory investigation yields the usual suspects:
scientists with a theoretical axe to grind, careers to further and the
status quo to maintain. Their modus operandi is "The Big Lie"--and the
bigger and more widely publicised, the better. They rely on invoking
their academic credentials to support their arguments, and the
presumption is that no one has the right to question their authoritarian
pronouncements that: 1. there is no mystery about who built the Great
Pyramid or what the methods of construction were, and the Sphinx shows
no signs of water damage; 2. there were no humans in the Americas before
20,000 BC; 3. the first civilisation dates back no further than 6000 BC;
4. there are no documented anomalous, unexplained or enigmatic data to
take into account; 5. there are no lost or unaccounted-for
civilisations. Let the evidence to the contrary be damned!
Personal Attacks: Dispute over Age of the Sphinx and Great Pyramid
In 1993, NBC in the USA aired The Mysteries of the Sphinx, which
presented geological evidence showing that the Sphinx was at least twice
as old (9,000 years) as Egyptologists claimed. It has become well known
as the "water erosion controversy". An examination of the politicking
that Egyptologists deployed to combat this undermining of their turf is
instructive.
Self-taught Egyptologist John Anthony West brought the water erosion
issue to the attention of geologist Dr Robert Schoch. They went to Egypt
and launched an intensive on-site investigation. After thoroughly
studying the Sphinx first hand, the geologist came to share West's
preliminary conclusion and they announced their findings.
Dr Zahi Hawass, the Giza Monuments chief, wasted no time in firing a
barrage of public criticism at the pair. Renowned Egyptologist Dr Mark
Lehner, who is regarded as the world's foremost expert on the Sphinx,
joined his attack. He charged West and Schoch with being "ignorant and
insensitive". That was a curious accusation which took the matter off
the professional level and put the whole affair on a personal plane. It
did not address the facts or issues at all and it was highly
unscientific.
But we must note the standard tactic of discrediting anyone who dares to
call the accepted theories into question. Shifting the focus away from
the issues and "personalising" the debate is a highly effective
strategy--one which is often used by politicians who feel insecure about
their positions. Hawass and Lehner invoked their untouchable status and
presumed authority. (One would think that a geologist's assessment would
hold more weight on this particular point.)
A short time later, Schoch, Hawass and Lehner were invited to debate the
issue at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. West
was not allowed to participate because he lacked the required
credentials.
This points to a questionable assumption that is part of the
establishment's arsenal: only degreed scientists can practise science.
Two filters keep the uncredentialled, independent researcher out of the
loop: (1) credentials, and (2) peer review. You do not get to number two
unless you have number one.
Science is a method that anyone can learn and apply. It does not require
a degree to observe and record facts and think critically about them,
especially in the non-technical social sciences. In a free and open
society, science has to be a democratic process.
Be that as it may, West was barred. The elements of the debate have been
batted back and forth since then without resolution. It is similar to
the controversy over who built the Giza pyramids and how.
This brings up the issue of The Big Lie and how it has been promoted for
generations in front of God and everyone. The controversy over how the
Great Pyramid was constructed is one example. It could be easily settled
if Egyptologists wanted to resolve the dispute. A simple test could be
designed and arranged by impartial engineers that would either prove or
disprove their longstanding disputed theory--that it was built using the
primitive tools and methods of the day, circa 2500 BC.
Why hasn't this been done? The answer is so obvious, it seems
impossible: they know that the theory is bogus. Could a trained, highly
educated scientist really believe that 2.3 million tons of stone, some
blocks weighing 70 tons, could have been transported and lifted by
primitive methods? That seems improbable, though they have no
compunction against lying to the public, writing textbooks and defending
this theory against alternative theories. However, we must note that
they will not subject themselves to the bottom-line test.
We think it is incumbent upon any scientist to bear the burden of proof
of his/her thesis; however, the social scientists who make these claims
have never stood up to that kind of scrutiny. That is why we must
suspect a conspiracy. No other scientific discipline would get away with
bending the rules of science. All that Egyptologists have ever done is
bat down alternative theories using underhanded tactics. It is time to
insist that they prove their own proposals.
Why would scientists try to hide the truth and avoid any test of their
hypothesis? Their motivations are equally transparent. If it can be
proved that the Egyptians did not build the Great Pyramid in 2500 BC
using primitive methods, or if the Sphinx can be dated to 9000 BC, the
whole house of cards comes tumbling down. Orthodox views of cultural
evolution are based upon a chronology of civilisation having started in
Sumeria no earlier than 4000 BC. The theory does not permit an advanced
civilisation to have existed prior to that time. End of discussion.
Archaeology and history lose their meaning without a fixed timeline as a
point of reference.
Since the theory of "cultural evolution" has been tied to Darwin's
general theory of evolution, even more is at stake. Does this explain
why facts, anomalies and enigmas are denied, suppressed and/or ignored?
Yes, it does. The biological sciences today are based on Darwinism.
Pressure Tactics: The Ica Stones of Peru
Now we turn to another, very different case. In 1966, Dr Javier Cabrera
received a stone as a gift from a poor local farmer in his native Ica,
Peru. A fish was carved on the stone, which would not have meant much to
the average villager but it did mean a lot to the educated Dr Cabrera.
He recognised it as a long-extinct species. This aroused his curiosity.
He purchased more stones from the farmer, who said he had collected them
near the river after a flood.
Dr Cabrera accumulated more and more stones, and word of their existence
and potential import reached the archaeological community. Soon, the
doctor had amassed thousands of "Ica stones". The sophisticated carvings
were as enigmatic as they were fascinating. Someone had carved men
fighting with dinosaurs, men with telescopes and men performing
operations with surgical equipment. They also contained drawings of lost
continents.
Several of the stones were sent to Germany and the etchings were dated
to remote antiquity. But we all know that men could not have lived at
the time of dinosaurs; Homo sapiens has only existed for about 100,000
years.
The BBC got wind of this discovery and swooped down to produce a
documentary about the Ica stones. The media exposure ignited a storm of
controversy. Archaeologists criticised the Peruvian government for being
lax about enforcing antiquities laws (but that was not their real
concern). Pressure was applied to government officials.
The farmer who had been selling the stones to Cabrera was arrested; he
claimed to have found them in a cave but refused to disclose the exact
location to authorities, or so they claimed.
This case was disposed of so artfully that it would do any corrupt
politician proud. The Peruvian government threatened to prosecute and
imprison the farmer. He was offered and accepted a plea bargain; he then
recanted his story and "admitted" to having carved the stones himself.
That seems highly implausible, since he was uneducated and unskilled and
there were 11,000 stones in all. Some were fairly large and intricately
carved with animals and scenes that the farmer would not have had
knowledge of without being a palaeontologist. He would have needed to
work every day for several decades to produce that volume of stones.
However, the underlying facts were neither here nor there. The Ica
stones were labelled "hoax" and forgotten.
The case did not require a head-to-head confrontation or public
discrediting of non-scientists by scientists; it was taken care of with
invisible pressure tactics. Since it was filed under "hoax", the
enigmatic evidence never had to be dealt with, as it did in the next
example.
Censorship of "Forbidden" Thinking: Evidence for Mankind's Great
Antiquity
The case of author Michael Cremo is well documented, and it also
demonstrates how the scientific establishment openly uses pressure
tactics on the media and government. His book Forbidden Archeology
examines many previously ignored examples of artifacts that prove modern
man's antiquity far exceeds the age given in accepted chronologies.
The examples which he and his co-author present are controversial, but
the book became far more controversial than the contents when it was
used in a documentary.
In 1996, NBC broadcast a special called The Mysterious Origins of Man,
which featured material from Cremo's book. The reaction from the
scientific community went off the Richter scale. NBC was deluged with
letters from irate scientists who called the producer "a fraud" and the
whole program "a hoax".
But the scientists went further than this--a lot further. In an
extremely unconscionable sequence of bizarre moves, they tried to force
NBC not to rebroadcast the popular program, but that effort failed. Then
they took the most radical step of all: they presented their case to the
federal government and requested the Federal Communications Commission
to step in and bar NBC from airing the program again.
This was not only an apparent infringement of free speech and a blatant
attempt to thwart commerce, it was an unprecedented effort to censor
intellectual discourse. If the public or any government agency made an
attempt to handcuff the scientific establishment, the public would never
hear the end of it.
The letter to the FCC written by Dr Allison Palmer, President of the
Institute for Cambrian Studies, is revealing:
At the very least, NBC should be required to make substantial prime-time
apologies to their viewing audience for a sufficient period of time so
that the audience clearly gets the message that they were duped. In
addition, NBC should perhaps be fined sufficiently so that a major fund
for public science education can be established.
I think we have some good leads on who "the Brain Police" are. And I
really do not think "conspiracy" is too strong a word--because for every
case of this kind of attempted suppression that is exposed, 10 others
are going on successfully. We have no idea how many enigmatic artifacts
or dates have been labelled "error" and tucked away in storage
warehouses or circular files, never to see the light of day.
Data Rejection: Inconvenient Dating in Mexico
Then there is the high-profile case of Dr Virginia Steen-McIntyre, a
geologist working for the US Geological Survey (USGS), who was
dispatched to an archaeological site in Mexico to date a group of
artifacts in the 1970s. This travesty also illustrates how far
established scientists will go to guard orthodox tenets.
McIntyre used state-of-the-art equipment and backed up her results by
using four different methods, but her results were off the chart. The
lead archaeologist expected a date of 25,000 years or less, and the
geologist's finding was 250,000 years or more.
The figure of 25,000 years or less was critical to the Bering Strait
"crossing" theory, and it was the motivation behind the head
archaeologist's tossing Steen-McIntyre's results in the circular file
and asking for a new series of dating tests. This sort of reaction does
not occur when dates match the expected chronological model that
supports accepted theories.
Steen-McIntyre was given a chance to retract her conclusions, but she
refused. She found it hard thereafter to get her papers published and
she lost a teaching job at an American university.
Government Suppression and Ethnocentrism: Avoiding Anomalous Evidence in
NZ, China and Mexico
In New Zealand, the government actually stepped in and enacted a law
forbidding the public from entering a controversial archaeological zone.
This story appeared in the book, Ancient Celtic New Zealand, by Mark
DoutrÈ.
However, as we will find (and as I promised at the beginning of the
article), this is a complicated conspiracy. Scientists trying to protect
their "hallowed" theories while furthering their careers are not the
only ones who want artifacts and data suppressed. This is where the
situation gets sticky.
The Waipoua Forest became a controversial site in New Zealand because an
archaeological dig apparently showed evidence of a non-Polynesian
culture that preceded the Maori--a fact that the tribe was not happy
with. They learned of the results of the excavations before the general
public did and complained to the government. According to DoutrÈ, the
outcome was "an official archival document, which clearly showed an
intention by New Zealand government departments to withhold
archaeological information from public scrutiny for 75 years".
The public got wind of this fiasco but the government denied the claim.
However, official documents show that an embargo had been placed on the
site. DoutrÈ is a student of New Zealand history and archaeology. He is
concerned because he says that artifacts proving that there was an
earlier culture which preceded the Maori are missing from museums. He
asks what happened to several anomalous remains:
Where are the ancient Indo-European hair samples (wavy red brown hair),
originally obtained from a rock shelter near Watakere, that were on
display at the Auckland War Memorial Museum for many years? Where is the
giant skeleton found near Mitimati?
Unfortunately this is not the only such incident. Ethnocentrism has
become a factor in the conspiracy to hide mankind's true history. Author
Graham Hancock has been attacked by various ethnic groups for reporting
similar enigmatic findings.
The problem for researchers concerned with establishing humanity's true
history is that the goals of nationalists or ethnic groups who want to
lay claim to having been in a particular place first, often dovetail
with the goals of cultural evolutionists.
Archaeologists are quick to go along with suppressing these kinds of
anomalous finds. One reason Egyptologists so jealously guard the Great
Pyramid's construction date has to do with the issue of national pride.
The case of the Takla Makan Desert mummies in western China is another
example of this phenomenon. In the 1970s and 1980s, an unaccounted-for
Caucasian culture was suddenly unearthed in China. The arid environment
preserved the remains of a blond-haired, blue-eyed people who lived in
pre-dynastic China. They wore colourful robes, boots, stockings and
hats. The Chinese were not happy about this revelation and they have
downplayed the enigmatic find, even though Asians were found buried
alongside the Caucasian mummies.
National Geographic writer Thomas B. Allen mused in a 1996 article about
his finding a potsherd bearing a fingerprint of the potter. When he
inquired if he could take the fragment to a forensic anthropologist, the
Chinese scientist asked whether he "would be able to tell if the potter
was a white man". Allen said he was not sure, and the official pocketed
the fragment and quietly walked away. It appears that many things get in
the way of scientific discovery and disclosure.
The existence of the Olmec culture in Old Mexico has always posed a
problem. Where did the Negroid people depicted on the colossal heads
come from? Why are there Caucasians carved on the stele in what is
Mexico's seed civilisation? What is worse, why aren't the indigenous
Mexican people found on the Olmec artifacts? Recently a Mexican
archaeologist solved the problem by making a fantastic claim: that the
Olmec heads--which generations of people of all ethnic groups have
agreed bear a striking resemblance to Africans--were really
representations of the local tribe.
STORMTROOPERS FOR DARWINISM
The public does not seem at all aware of the fact that the scientific
establishment has a double standard when it comes to the free flow of
information. In essence, it goes like this... Scientists are highly
educated, well trained and intellectually capable of processing all
types of information, and they can make the correct critical
distinctions between fact and fiction, reality and fantasy. The unwashed
public is simply incapable of functioning on this high mental plane.
The noble ideal of the scientist as a highly trained, impartial,
apolitical observer and assembler of established facts into a useful
body of knowledge seems to have been shredded under the pressures and
demands of the real world. Science has produced many positive benefits
for society; but we should know by now that science has a dark, negative
side. Didn't those meek fellows in the clean lab coats give us nuclear
bombs and biological weapons? The age of innocence ended in World War
II.
That the scientific community has an attitude of intellectual
superiority is thinly veiled under a carefully orchestrated public
relations guise. We always see Science and Progress walking hand in
hand. Science as an institution in a democratic society has to function
in the same way as the society at large; it should be open to debate,
argument and counter-argument. There is no place for unquestioned
authoritarianism. Is modern science meeting these standards?
In the Fall of 2001, PBS aired a seven-part series, titled Evolution.
Taken at face value, that seems harmless enough. However, while the
program was presented as pure, objective, investigative science
journalism, it completely failed to meet even minimum standards of
impartial reporting. The series was heavily weighted towards the view
that the theory of evolution is "a science fact" that is accepted by
"virtually all reputable scientists in the world", and not a theory that
has weaknesses and strong scientific critics.
The series did not even bother to interview scientists who have
criticisms of Darwinism: not "creationists" but bona fide scientists. To
correct this deficiency, a group of 100 dissenting scientists felt
compelled to issue a press release, "A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism",
on the day the first program was scheduled to go to air. Nobel nominee
Henry "Fritz" Schaefer was among them. He encouraged open public debate
of Darwin's theory:
Some defenders of Darwinism embrace standards of evidence for evolution
that as scientists they would never accept in other circumstances.
We have seen this same "unscientific" approach applied to archaeology
and anthropology, where "scientists" simply refuse to prove their
theories yet appoint themselves as the final arbiters of "the facts". It
would be naive to think that the scientists who cooperated in the
production of the series were unaware that there would be no
counter-balancing presentation by critics of Darwin's theory.
Richard Milton is a science journalist. He had been an ardent true
believer in Darwinian doctrine until his investigative instincts kicked
in one day. After 20 years of studying and writing about evolution, he
suddenly realised that there were many disconcerting holes in the
theory. He decided to try to allay his doubts and prove the theory to
himself by using the standard methods of investigative journalism.
Milton became a regular visitor to London's famed Natural History
Museum. He painstakingly put every main tenet and classic proof of
Darwinism to the test. The results shocked him. He found that the theory
could not even stand up to the rigours of routine investigative
journalism.
The veteran science writer took a bold step and published a book titled
The Facts of Life: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism. It is clear that
the Darwinian myth had been shattered for him, but many more myths about
science would also be crushed after his book came out. Milton says:
I experienced the witch-hunting activity of the Darwinist police at
first handit was deeply disappointing to find myself being described by
a prominent Oxford zoologist [Richard Dawkins] as "loony", "stupid" and
"in need of psychiatric help" in response to purely scientific
reporting.
(Does this sound like stories that came out of the Soviet Union 20 years
ago when dissident scientists there started speaking out?)
Dawkins launched a letter-writing campaign to newspaper editors,
implying that Milton was a "mole" creationist whose work should be
dismissed. Anyone at all familiar with politics will recognise this as a
standard Machiavellian by-the-book "character assassination" tactic.
Dawkins is a highly respected scientist, whose reputation and standing
in the scientific community carry a great deal of weight.
According to Milton, the process came to a head when the London Times
Higher Education Supplement commissioned him to write a critique of
Darwinism. The publication foreshadowed his coming piece: "Next Week:
Darwinism - Richard Milton goes on the attack". Dawkins caught wind of
this and wasted no time in nipping this heresy in the bud. He contacted
the editor, Auriol Stevens, and accused Milton of being a "creationist",
and prevailed upon Stevens to pull the plug on the article. Milton
learned of this behind-the-scenes backstabbing and wrote a letter of
appeal to Stevens. In the end, she caved in to Dawkins and scratched the
piece.
Imagine what would happen if a politician or bureaucrat used such
pressure tactics to kill a story in the mass media. It would ignite a
huge scandal. Not so with scientists, who seem to be regarded as "sacred
cows" and beyond reproach. There are many disturbing facts related to
these cases. Darwin's theory of evolution is the only theory routinely
taught in our public school system that has never been subjected to
rigorous scrutiny; nor have any of the criticisms been allowed into the
curriculum.
This is an interesting fact, because a recent poll showed that the
American public wants the theory of evolution taught to their children;
however, "71 per cent of the respondents say biology teachers should
teach both Darwinism and scientific evidence against Darwinian theory".
Nevertheless, there are no plans to implement this balanced approach.
It is ironic that Richard Dawkins has been appointed to the position of
Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.
He is a classic "Brain Police" stormtrooper, patrolling the neurological
front lines. The Western scientific establishment and mass media pride
themselves on being open public forums devoid of prejudice or
censorship. However, no television program examining the flaws and
weaknesses of Darwinism has ever been aired in Darwin's home country or
in America. A scientist who opposes the theory cannot get a paper
published.
The Mysterious Origins of Man was not a frontal attack on Darwinism; it
merely presented evidence that is considered anomalous by the precepts
of his theory of evolution.
Returning to our bastions of intellectual integrity, Forest Mims was a
solid and skilled science journalist. He had never been the centre of
any controversy and so he was invited to write the most-read column in
the prestigious Scientific American, "The Amateur Scientist", a task he
gladly accepted. According to Mims, the magazine's editor Jonathan Piel
then learned that he also wrote articles for a number of Christian
magazines. The editor called Mims into his office and confronted him.
"Do you believe in the theory of evolution?" Piel asked.
Mims replied, "No, and neither does Stephen Jay Gould."
His response did not affect Piel's decision to bump Mims off the popular
column after just three articles.
This has the unpleasant odour of a witch-hunt. The writer never publicly
broadcast his private views or beliefs, so it would appear that the
"stormtroopers" now believe they have orders to make sure "unapproved"
thoughts are never publicly disclosed.
TABOO OR NOT TABOO?
So, the monitors of "good thinking" are not just the elite of the
scientific community, as we have seen in several cases; they are
television producers and magazine editors as well. It seems clear that
they are all driven by the singular imperative of furthering "public
science education", as the president of the Cambrian Institute so aptly
phrased it.
However, there is a second item on the agenda, and that is to protect
the public from "unscientific" thoughts and ideas that might infect the
mass mind. We outlined some of those taboo subjects at the beginning of
the article; now we should add that it is also "unwholesome" and
"unacceptable" to engage in any of the following research pursuits:
paranormal phenomena, UFOs, cold fusion, free energy and all the rest of
the "pseudo-sciences". Does this have a familiar ring to it? Are we
hearing the faint echoes of religious zealotry?
Who ever gave science the mission of engineering and directing the
inquisitive pursuits of the citizenry of the free world? It is all but
impossible for any scientific paper that has anti-Darwinian
ramifications to be published in a mainstream scientific journal. It is
also just as impossible to get the "taboo" subjects even to the review
table, and you can forget about finding your name under the title of any
article in Nature unless you are a credentialled scientist, even if you
are the next Albert Einstein.
To restate how this conspiracy begins, it is with two filters:
credentials and peer review. Modern science is now a maze of such
filters set up to promote certain orthodox theories and at the same time
filter out that data already prejudged to be unacceptable. Evidence and
merit are not the guiding principles; conformity and position within the
established community have replaced objectivity, access and openness.
Scientists do not hesitate to launch the most outrageous personal
attacks against those they perceive to be the enemy. Eminent
palaeontologist Louis Leakey penned this acid one-liner about Forbidden
Archeology: "Your book is pure humbug and does not deserve to be taken
seriously by anyone but a fool." Once again, we see the thrust of a
personal attack; the merits of the evidence presented in the book are
not examined or debated. It is a blunt, authoritarian pronouncement.
In a forthcoming instalment, we will examine some more documented cases
and delve deeper into the subtler dimensions of the conspiracy.
References and Resources:
* Cremo, Michael A. and Richard L. Thompson, Forbidden Archeology,
Govardhan Hill, USA, 1993.
* Cremo, Michael A., "The Controversy over 'The Mysterious Origins of
Man'", NEXUS 5/04, 1998; Forbidden Archeology's Impact, Bhaktivedanta
Book Publishing, USA, 1998, website http://www.mcremo.com.
* Doore, Kathy, "The Nazca Spaceport & the Ica Stones of Peru",
http://www.labyrinthina.com/ica.htm; see website for copy of Dr Javier
Cabrera's book, The Message of the Engraved Stones.
* DoutrÈ, Mark, Ancient Celtic New Zealand, DÈ Danann, New Zealand,
1999, website http://www.celticnz.co.nz.
* Milton, Richard, The Facts of Life: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism,
Corgi, UK, 1993, http://www.alternativescience.com.
* Steen-McIntyre, Virginia, "Suppressed Evidence for Ancient Man in
Mexico", NEXUS 5/05, 1998.
* Sunfellow, David, "The Great Pyramid & The Sphinx", November 25, 1994,
at http://www.nhne.com/specialrepots/spyramid.html.
* Tampa Bay Tribune, October 12, 2001 (Darwinism/evolution quote),
http://www.tampatrib.com.
About the Author: Will Hart is a freelance journalist, book author,
nature photographer and documentary filmmaker. He lives and does much of
his research in the Lake Tahoe area in the USA, and writes a column
titled "The Tahoe Naturalist" for a regional publication. He has
produced and directed films about wolves and wild horses.
http://www.nexusmagazine.com/arcoverups.html
---
|