You can learn a lot from the Smithsonian Institute.
One of the main things you can learn, especially if you visit their ‘human evolution’ pages is that they won’t let a complete lack of evidence or fraudulent fossils deter them from telling you the story they want you to hear about how humans ‘evolved’ (sic) down the course of millions of years (sic).
Here’s a little about what it tells us about ‘homo erectus’:
Here’s what it DOESN’T tell you about ‘homo erectus’:
Eugene Dubois was a student of Earnst Haeckel, who infamously forged a whole bunch of ‘embryo’ diagrams in a deliberate attempt to mislead the public into believing that embryos went through all the stages of evolution in the womb. Despite Haeckel’s forgeries being uncovered many decades ago, you’ll still find a whole bunch of people who point to Haeckel’s diagrams as ‘proof’ of macro evolution.
So Dubois was the student of an academic fraudster who was so ‘religious’ about his belief in evolution, he was willing to lie, cheat and falsify evidence to get the public to believe in it, too. And it seems as though Dubois was similarly inclined:
After years of [Dubois’] excavations with the assistance of forced laborers, they dug up a tooth and skullcap on the banks of the Solo River on Java island (an island of Indonesia). The skullcap was ape-like having a low forehead and large eyebrow ridges. The following year and about forty feet away, the workmen uncovered a thigh bone that was clearly human. Due to the close proximity of the find, Dubois assumed they belonged to the same creature. Dubois then named the find Pithecanthropus erectus (erect ape-man).
Brace and Montagu in 1977 state that: “Curiously, Dubois waited until the 1920s to also reveal he had found four more human thigh bones in the area where his Pithecanthropus material had been discovered.”
So there are a bunch of very well-known questions and doubts hanging over Dubois’ ‘Java Man’ from Indonesia, and there are other ‘irregularities’ associated with ‘Peking Man’, too.
"Strangely, every Peking fossil mysteriously disappeared in 1941, leaving students nothing to work on but casts …."
I.E. there were strong suspicions right from the beginning that these ‘fossils’ didn’t really stand up to any real scrutiny. But the Smithsonian Institute in 2017 isn’t breathing a word about these doubts to the poor, clueless reader.
Here’s another one of the Smithsonian’s line of apparent ‘ancestors’, discovered in 2003:
Again, a careful reading of what the Smithsonian Institute is telling readers is that there’s no evidence this ‘homo floresiensis’ is anything other than a ‘homo sapiens’ with a disease or growth disorder that lived on an isolated island where the elephants were also pygmy-sized.
Let’s try another apparent ‘ancestor’, to see if the evidence gets any more persuasive:
So, you’ll note that they have absolutely no hard evidence that ‘homo habilis’ made any of the stone tools they found, or even that it’s a new ‘species’ of man, but these scientists still declared this fossil to be an early human ancestor, as opposed to just another extinct species of ape.
Why exactly they decided that, we aren’t told.
The more I’m reading through all this paleontological and anthropological pseudo-science, the more I’m realizing how scientists hide so much of their unproven ‘assumptions’ and ‘beliefs’ behind some very big words, to make it much harder for the public to understand what’s really going on.
Here’s a few paleontological terms that will make it easier for the lay man (i.e. you and me…) to understand what we’re really reading:
Australopithecines: Are a bunch of remains that are essentially extinct APES, not humans.
Homo Erectus: Are a bunch of remains that are essentially HUMAN, not apes.
Pongid: Simply refers to apes / monkeys.
WHY ARE THESE SCIENTISTS SO KEEN TO ‘INVENT’ MISSING LINKS AND TWIST FOSSIL EVIDENCE AROUND IN SUCH A DISTORTED WAY?
After the ‘Piltdown Man’ fossil was revealed as a deliberate fraud, paleontologists had no ‘missing links’ to link humans to apes. As this was a key requirement for the theory of macro evolution, the search was on to find the ‘inevitable’ missing links. That’s what’s behind all these ‘assumptions’ and ‘beliefs’ about what these fossil researchers are pulling out of the ground.
‘Homo habilis’ is NOT an ‘early’ human, it’s an extinct monkey.
Another one of our ‘ancestors’ that was lauded as a missing link and highly publicized was ‘Lucy’ - who ended up being an extinct form of orangutan, and not an ‘early genus of human’, as all the scientists claimed.
Before we come on to more of a discussion as to what, exactly, is going on with these fossils, I want to tell you about ‘Ida’, as she came to be known, as it’s so instructive as to how scientists very publicly rush to claim ‘evidence’ for their false theories, and in so doing completely mis-lead the public about what’s really going on.
On May 19, 2009, the world woke up to the following stunning headlines (this is excerpted from an online article in The Guardian):
Tuesday 19 May 2009 15.30 BST
IDA, THE EIGHTH WONDER OF THE WORLD...
So, are we all clear what got discovered here? THE missing link between humans and animals. And there’s a whole bunch of big names jumping up and down telling you that, and doing documentaries about ‘Ida’ and underlying very clearly that Darwin’s theory of evolution is right - coincidentally just in time for Darwin’s 200th birthday!
The ‘Ida’ documentary was a joint venture between the BBC and the History Channel, and drew many millions of viewers. Even Google got in on the PR campaign to introduce ‘Ida’ to the world, with a specially-designed link on its front page to celebrate the find, and National Geographic hailed ‘Ida’ as the ‘critical missing link species’.
Colin Tudge even wrote a popular book about Ida, called The Link: Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor (Little Brown & Co, 2009), which is interesting because in that book even Tudge conceded that:
The primate fossil record is so sparse that only around fifty significant specimens exist from the past 5 million years. The most famous is Lucy, the 3.2 million year old australopithecine discovered by Donald Johanson in November 1974. Lucy revolutionized science by providing the first evidence of a primate that walked upright--a crucial link in our own evolution that distinguishes us from all other primates. But even Lucy, considered a remarkable specimen, was only 40 percent complete.
As you’ll know from what you just read above, the 60% of Lucy that was missing was all the parts that differentiate a human being from a monkey. Lucy was subsequently declared to be an extinct form of Orangutan - a long time ago! - yet she’s still hitting the headlines in Tudge’s book from 2009 as the other ‘most famous’ missing link before Ida showed up.
“Everyone agrees that from the neck up, "Lucy" was gorilla-like. Her brain size was about one-fourth the size of a human brain; her jaw was "U"-shaped, typical of gorillas; her teeth were large, far larger than those in humans.
From the neck down, nearly every: feature was likewise non-human. Australopithecus fossils, including those which are thought to be much more recent and therefore should be more human-like, have long, curved fingers and long, curved toes—well adapted to swinging from tree limb to tree limb.”
In a further twist on the 'Lucy' story, a recent re-analysis of the bones found that a baboon bone had somehow got snuck into the mix too... But I digress.
So the PR campaign to institute ‘Ida’ as a missing link was a great success! But there was just one problem with it: It was all a big lie.
Now, let’s fast forward a few months to March, 2010, when scientists from the University of Texas released the following conclusions about Ida:
"Recently Analyzed Fossil Was Not Human Ancestor As Claimed, Anthropologists Say"
Twelve of the sixteen primate traits that the scientists were able to identify classified Ida with monkeys. It turned out, Ida was a lemur.
Of course, no-one bothered to set the public straight about that. National Geographic didn’t run a new article apologizing for misreading its readers, and the BBC and the History Channel didn’t see fit to run a new documentary exploring fraudulent discoveries of ‘missing links’. The public - millions of them - was left with the very clear impression that yet another ‘missing link’ to prove Darwin’s theory of evolution had been found.
So, what’s the real explanation for what’s going on with all these bones and fossils that show a slightly different skull or skeleton from what science considers to be a ‘modern’ human being?
In 1994, scientist Bill Mehlert wrote:
“The pendulum is now swinging to the view that most, if not all erectus specimens are indeed full members of the human race. With the discovery of the Turkana “Boy” WT 15000 in 1984 in Kenya, it is no longer possible to hold to the position that Homo erectus was only a large-brained pongid (ape).
Again, to put this into plain English, all the different types of skeletons that are called ‘erectus’, ‘archaic’ and ‘neanderthal’ are actually all just modern man, or homo sapiens etc.
And the ‘human ancestors’ (sic) that are called austalopithecines and habilines (after the homo habilis you read about above) - are all just extinct apes. This view is held by a number of scientists, including DT Gish (Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record), M Lubenow (Bones of Contention), GJ Beasley, Cherfas and Gribbin (Descent of man or ascent of ape? New Scientist 91)
Again, to quote Mehlert:
“[T]here are human skulls in Australia, dated as modern, which exhibit clear and unambiguous erectus features. Found in Victoria (Kow Swamp), and New South Wales (Willandra Lakes, Mungo), several of these Australian aboriginal remains have fully modern human-sized brains of around 1250cc, yet they all possess the heavy supraorbital tori, flattish receding foreheads, prognathic faces, and large jaws so typical of the earliest and the latest erectus specimens.”
I.e., home erectus was just a type of modern aboriginal man.
This point was proved, ironically enough, by Professor Reiner Protsch, a ‘carbon dating expert’ who managed to fraudulently convince the whole anthropological world that he’d found the ‘missing links’ between human and ‘neanderthals’ by passing off modern skulls as ancient fossils:
“[A] university inquiry was told that a crucial Hamburg skull fragment, which was believed to have come from the world's oldest German, a Neanderthal known as Hahnhöfersand Man, was actually a mere 7,500 years old, according to Oxford University's radiocarbon dating unit. The unit established that other skulls had been wrongly dated too.
But it’s a fair question to ask how these people came to have such big jaws and flat, wide foreheads. And the answer is actually very simple. Let’s go back to Mehlert:
“…the so-called “primitive” erectus and Neanderthal features are almost entirely due to the functioning of the jaw mechanism which would affect the size and shape of brow ridges, the forehead and the zygomatic arch.”
When people eat uncooked, or partially-cooked food in childhood (which could happen a lot in times of food shortage, war or severe economic distress), this strengthens and enlarges the jaw mechanism, which in turn leads to the forehead becoming ‘flatter’, which in turn makes the brow ridges stick out, forces the zygomatic arch out, and leads to flattened cheek bones and squarer faces.
If a person was severely lacking in Vitamin D, that could also lead to a great many of the characteristics associated with ‘neanderthals’. Even today, a lack of Vitamin D is behind such bone mis-shaping diseases as rickets - and even today, there are a whole bunch of people walking around the modern world with so-called ‘homo erectus’ or ‘neanderthal’ features, i.e. massive brow ridges, flattened foreheads, a poorly defined chin, and a large lower jaw.
(In fact, an article in Nature magazine in 1971, bore the headline: “Neanderthals had rickets”.)
So to sum things up, ‘neanderthal man’ is just a variant of you and me. And increasing numbers of scientists who still hold by evolution think this, too:
One of the world’s foremost authorities on the Neanderthals, Erik Trinkaus, concluded:
The last thing I want to tell you about is this article on Botox from the Daily Mail:
“Even as a young girl, Louisa Smith had never been happy with the rather masculine shape of her face and felt self-conscious of her square jaw by the time she reached her teens.”
To cut a long story short, Louisa suffered from bruxism throughout her childhood, i.e. she ground her teeth. When she went to get a botox treatment to ‘soften’ her jaw, within six weeks she’d lost that angular-jawed look we associate with Neanderthals, and her face had instantly slimmed down to ‘normal’ and modern looking.
You can see the before and after pictures for yourself HERE, and also below:
But the point is this:
You can learn a lot at the Smithsonian Institute, not least, how much misinformation, distorted information and outright lies they - and other 'scientific' institutions like National Geographic and the Nature Channel - are feeding the public dressed up as unvarnished ‘truth’ and scientifically-proven ‘facts’ about evolution.
In 1949, one Professor M Ewing from Columbia University set out with a team of researchers to go and take a closer look at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, particularly around the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.
Amongst other things, the team used sound echo equipment to measure the depth of the sediment on the ocean floor - something they expected to be many thousands of feet thick.
Ocean sediment is typically made up of all the millions and billions of microscopic creatures that live and then die in the oceans - called ‘foraminifera’ - amongst other things. The skeletons of these microscopic creatures very slowly sink to the bottom of the ocean floor, and become sediment.
According to Professor Ewing, other things that add to the sediment on the ocean floor are volcanic dust, wind-blown soil and “the ashes of burned-out meteorites and cosmic dust from outer space sifting constantly down upon the earth.”
If the world was really billions of years old, as claimed, there should be miles of sediment at the bottom of the sea. But that’s not what Professor Ewing and his researchers found when they started measuring it. Writing in: “New Discoveries on the Mid-Atlantic Ride” in National Geographic in 1949, Professor Ewing said:
“Surprisingly, we have found that in the great flat basins on either side of the Ridge, this sediment appears to be less than 100 feet thick…. Always it had been thought the sediment must be extremely thick, since it has been accumulating for countless ages (sic).
The lost continent of Atlantis, anyone?
Fast forward to July 2016, and researcher Isabel Yeo from GEOMAR's Helmholtz Institute for Ocean Research in Kiel took a team of researchers to the North Kolbeinsey Atlantic Ocean Ridge, around 500km off the north coast of Iceland, to start collecting detailed images of the ‘hundreds’ of deep water volcanoes - many of which are still live - scattered on the ocean floor there.
Yeo came up with a new method of photographing and dating the lava flows from these volcanoes, which are found between 7--2,000 metres below the surface of the ocean using ‘hydro-acoustic properties’.
The basic idea is that this technology hits the lava flows with sonar, and then analyses how much sound the lava flow reflects back. Yeo commented that her super-sharp images: “combined with the spatial extents of the flows, mean we can work out how much lava erupted where and when.”
As with all of these dating techniques, it relies heavily on a number of unproven assumptions, that Yeo identified in her paper presenting the findings:
“These calculations are heavily dependent on a number of assumptions including assuming that the sediment drape and the surface structure of the lava flow fields are homogeneous, that sedimentation rate is constant through time and that the effects of acoustic refraction within the sediment are negligible. Sediment thickness may be overestimated if the sediments are sandier than assumed.”
But the basic findings were still shocking enough:
Yeo found that these massive volcanic eruptions on the sea floor had all occurred within the last 4,000 years, and that the biggest eruptions and lava flows occurred 3,200 years ago.
But the sea held more secrets, too.
In 1947, a Swedish deep-sea expedition headed by H Pettersson, director of the Oceanographic Institute of Goteborg also found “evidence of great catastrophes that have altered the face of the earth.”
What did the Swedes find, to convince them of this? Here’s a small part of what they reported finding in Scientific American, in 1950:
“Nickel is a very rare element in most terrestrial rocks and continental sediments, and it is almost absent from the ocean waters. On the other hand, it’s one of the main components of meteorites.”
I.e. whenever a lot of nickel shows up, that’s usually a clear sign that a particular area or region got bombarded by a very heavy shower of meteorites.
All over the world, there is evidence that around 3,500 years ago, the ocean level suddenly and significantly dropped leading to the shorelines ‘emerging’ well over 20ft higher. Professor Reginald Daly, writing in Our Mobile Earth, said:
“Marine terraces, indicating similar emergence, are found along the Atlantic coast from New York to the Gulf of Mexico; for at least 1,000 miles along the coast of Eastern Australia, along the coasts of Brazil, southwest Africa, and many islands of the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans. In all these and other published cases, the emergence is recent as well as of the same order of magnitude.”
Daly thought that this came about due to a “recent worldwide sinking of ocean level”. Daly put the date for this huge upheaval at between 3,000 - 4,000 years ago. This dating was subsequently confirmed by another researcher, PN Kuenen of Leyden University, who wrote in Marine Geology:
“The time of the movement was estimated by Daly to be probably some 3,000 to 4,000 years ago. Detailed field work in the Netherlands and in Eastern England has shown a recent eustatic depression of the same order of magnitude as deduced by Daly. Here the time can be fixed as roughly 3,000 - 3,500 years ago.”
I.e. exactly the time the Israelites left Egypt.
We’re currently in the Jewish year 5778. The Exodus from Egypt occurred in 2446.
5778-2446 = 3332 years’ ago, at the date of writing.
And you’ll recall that our Sages taught that when the sea ‘split’ in Egypt, the seas all over the world also ‘split’ at exactly the same time, which is how the nations of the world knew of the miracles that were being done for the Jewish people.
Wherever you turn, there is more and more evidence that the land became sea, and that sea became land across huge swathes of the planet, around 3,500 years ago - and that it had absolutely nothing to do with so-called ‘global warming’.
Here’s what Velikovsky has to say:
“Human artifacts and bones of land animals were dredged from the bottom of the North Sea; and along the shores of Scotland and England, as well as on the Dogger Bank in the middle of the sea, stumps of trees with their roots still in the ground were found. Forty five miles from the coast, from a depth of thirty six metres. Norfolk fishermen drew up a spearhead carved from the antler of a deer, embedded in a block of peat.”
Which dated whatever it was that submerged huge areas of Northern Europe under water to 1500 BCE - i.e., 3,500 years ago, when the Jews were leaving Egypt.
There is a huge list of locations in England and Wales which are home to recently submerged forests, which still have large trees somehow rooted to the bottom of the ocean floor, showing they were submerged only recently. These were found at:
In February 2014, a huge storm shifted a ton of sand shale off the Cornish and Welsh coasts revealing more of these ‘submerged forests’. One of the biggest forests is at Mount Bay, Cornwall, which contains a number of underwater oak, beech and pine trees, measuring between 3 and 5 metres tall.
Modern geologists grabbed the opportunity to use carbon 14 dating on the trunks, to date them - and again stunned the scientific community by coming up with a time period of between 4000 - 6000 years.
(You’ll recall from THIS article that carbon 14 dating is usually fairly accurate within the last 3,500 years or so).
Speaking to the Telegraph newspaper, Frank Howie, Cornwall Wildlife Trustee and chair of the county's Geoconservation Group, said:
"The storms have revealed two to five metre trunks of pine and oak as well as the remains of hazel thickets with well-preserved cob nuts and acorns washed out by streams running across the beach.
All of this shows that very recently, much of what is now underwater was previously inhabited dry land. And that this massive change to the earth’s contours didn’t occur billions, or even millions of years ago.
It all happened within the last 3,500 years, i.e. well within what’s known as ‘historical’ times, and at the time that the Jewish people left Egypt amidst the huge natural upheavals that came to be known as the 10 plagues, and then received the Torah on Mount Sinai amidst more huge 'natural' cataclysms.
So honestly, you could call this post the 500 billion big lies that evolutionists like to tell to back up their completely unscientific ‘theory’ of evolution, but let’s stick to seven for now, so I can get this written before I mutate (in another 4 billion years…) into something that can’t type.
BIG LIE NUMBER 1: MACRO EVOLUTION OCCURS OVER BILLIONS OF YEARS
This is the idea that 'given time', an amoeba could randomly turn into a monkey.
It would take trillions and trillions of years before an amoeba could 'randomly' turn into a monkey, or a fully-sentient human being - if it could even happen at all, because nearly all 'random' mutations aren't beneficial to the organism (think cancer) and cause the organism's death.
Pioneering molecular biologist Douglas Axe recently proved conclusively that the amount of time it would actually take for even one of Darwin’s ‘happy evolutionary coincidences’ to occur was a number so big, it’s practically impossible. The world simply isn’t old enough for all the millions of evolutionary tweaks that could turn an amoeba into anything remotely similar to a biped - or even something more modest, like an earthworm or fruit-fly.[i]
Again, to be clear: Axe’s research on folding proteins showed conclusively that 4.5 billion years is not long enough for an amoeba to turn into a fruit-fly, let alone a human being.
This point by itself is enough to show the ‘theory’ of evolution is complete baloney.
Read on for a connected big lie.
BIG LIE NUMBER 2: DNA ‘PROVES’ EVOLUTION
If you pick up a copy of: Signature in the cell: DNA and the evidence for intelligent life, written by Professor Stephen Meyer, PHD, he reviews many origin of life theories, specifically relating to DNA and RNA.
“Meyer dissects each of these theories, the end result for nearly all of these ideas is that they are based on certain amounts of specified information existing as a premise for the subsequent parts of the theory to function, in other words they do not explain or solve the problem of where biological information comes from, but simply displace the problem.
BIG LIE NUMBER THREE: TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS SHOW EVOLUTION
In all my searching for these mythical ‘transitional fossils’ that ‘prove’ evolution, I’ve come up with precisely one example given: a reptile with turtle-type features.
And if you’re a keen observer, you’ll notice that this is backwards as according to evolutionists, sea creatures ‘evolved’ into land creatures and not the other way around.
Here’s what the REAL SCIENCE says about transitional fossils:
“It is not even possible to make a caricature of evolution out of paleobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that the lack of transitional series cannot be explained by the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real, they are never going to be filled.” - Professor N. Heribert-Nilsson of Lund University, Sweden, summing up his 40 years of work on the subject in his book: Synthetische Artbildung:
BIG LIE NUMBER 4: VESTIGIAL TRAITS
This is the idea that a human appendix is a ‘throw back’ to when they were a monkey, or something.
Most of what arrogant western doctors consider to be ‘vestigial’ organs actually do have a use in the human body, just they haven’t yet figured it out, because they don’t know everything about human health.
Take a look at this article: Your Appendix is Useful After All as one example, but tonsils - another one of the ‘vestigial traits’ often quoted by evolutionists - are also part of the immune system and serve an important function in the body.
BIG LIE NUMBER 5: EARLY EMBRYO DEVELOPMENT ‘PROVES’ EVOLUTION
This is the idea that humans used to be fish / monkeys etc because the embryo goes through a stage of looking like these creatures as it grows in the womb.
Ernst Haeckel, a German biologist, was the first person who proposed this idea, and even did a very nice text book showing how it occurred.
There was just one problem: Haeckel blatantly faked many of his diagrams and falsified his ‘science’, something that he only admitted to many, many years later, after his theory had gained mainstream acceptance as being ‘scientifically proven’.
Yet more than 100 years later, Haeckel’s fraudulence is still being proffered by evolutionists as ‘scientific proof’ that their theory is correct.
BIG LIE NUMBER 6: MICRO EVOLUTION SOMEHOW ‘PROVES’ MACRO EVOLUTION
This is the idea that because a creature, a human, can be ‘conditioned’ by their environment and experiences to change their behavior of certain minor facets of their appearance within a lifetime, or over the very short time - what’s known as MICRO EVOLUTION - this somehow ‘proves’ that an amoeba can turn into a dog, and a monkey into a human, over the (impossibly….) long term.
Again, there is ZERO scientific evidence for this.
This is completely an article of faith, much more akin to a religious belief than a scientific proof of anything.
Please see BIG LIES 1 & 2, above, which show that ACCORDING TO REAL SCIENCE, the probability of the world being old enough to enable all these random beneficial changes to occur is ZERO.
BIG LIE NUMBER 7: COMPUTERS CAN SIMULATE EVOLUTION
That this is even something evolutionists claim as ‘proof’ of evolution is, well, sad.
It stands to reason that computer programmes are based on a whole bunch of ASSUMPTIONS made by the people creating them.
If those assumptions are false, whatever is being ‘simulated’ is also based on falsehood.
It’s a total non-argument for anyone who doesn’t have a religious belief in evolution.
TO SUM THIS UP:
There is so much more to say about this. All the stuff I’m putting up here about Carbon Dating 14 and other radiometric ‘dating’ methods being based on very faulty assumptions; and the ‘belief’ in Lyell’s principle of uniformity (which is another scientific ‘belief’ that doesn’t have a shred of scientific evidence backing it up) also clearly shows that the age of the world is not as the scientists would have you believe.
Why does the world need to be so old?
Because evolutionists need trillions of years to make their theories credible.
But the world is NOT trillions of years old, and even going by the assumption that it’s 4.5 billion (sic) years old, that’s still no-where near the amount of time it would be required for evolution to be a credible theory.
For anyone who isn’t religious about evolution, this should really be case closed.
The Sahara desert is one of the largest deserts on earth, and it’s easy to believe that nothing ever existed in this vast, desolate space except dust, sand and wind.
Yet, many rock drawings have been found in the area which show herds of cattle and other animals, none of which are still to be found in the Sahara, and most of which are now extinct. These drawings were found close to Neolithic [concluding between 4500 and 2000 BCE, depending on the area] items of polished stone, including implements, vessels and even weapons, in both Western and Eastern Sahara.
The obvious conclusion is that the people in this area pastured a lot of animals in the area that is now the uninhabitable Sahara desert, within the last 6,000 years.
So what happened? Where did all the sand come from? Where did the all the open grassland and water go?
Firstly, let’s pin the dates of human habitation in the Sahara down a little more closely. Franz Karl Movers was a very well known orientalist, who maintained that the Saharan rock pictures had been done by the Phoenicians (L Frobenius and Douglas C Fox, Prehistoric Rock Pictures in Europe and Africa, 1937).
Here’s what Wikipedia has to say about them:
The people of Phoenicia, who flourished from 1200–800 BCE, created a confederation of kingdoms across the entire Sahara to Egypt. They generally settled along the Mediterranean coast, as well as the Sahara, among the people of ancient Libya, who were the ancestors of people who speak Berber languages in North Africa and the Sahara today, including the Tuareg of the central Sahara.
One of the Egyptian pagan deities, Set, was also found drawn on a rock in the Sahara, together with horse-drawn war chariots. No horse could last more than two days in the present arid conditions of the Sahara desert.
So what happened, and when did it occur?
Yet again, the versions of events told by modern science itself simply doesn’t add up. The ‘official’ version of events, given in the Encylopedia Britannica, ponderously states that:
“Long before recorded history, the Sahara was evidently more widely occupied. Stone artifacts, fossils, and rock art, widely scattered through regions now far too dry for occupation, reveal the former human presence, together with that of game animals, including antelopes, buffalo, giraffe, elephant, rhinoceros, and warthog.
Note the ‘long before recorded history’ bit that makes this sound like it happened eons ago, which is then contradicted by the last bit that explains that large herds of animals appeared in the desert less than 7,000 years ago.
But then, we have this from 2015, from Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies who explained that most scientists today believe “the Sahara dried up due to a change in the Earth’s orbit, which affects solar insolation, or the amount of electromagnetic energy the Earth receives from the Sun.”
He goes on to explain that:
“around 8,000 years ago, the Earth’s orbit was slightly different to how it is today. The tilt changed from around 24.1 degrees to the present-day 23.5 degrees. Additionally, the Earth had its closest approach to the Sun in the northern hemisphere (with) summer in August,” Schmidt said.
Modern science itself is saying whatever massive catastrophe happened to dessicate the green steppes of the Sahara, it happened 8,000 years ago - not milllions, and not billions of years, but basically within the Torah’s timescale for planet earth.
To put this another way, we have a NASA scientist admitting that 8,000 years ago (sic) ‘something’ changed the earth’s orbit and affected the planet’s climate so greatly, a huge tropical land mass the size of Europe dried up overnight and turned into a desert.
How does this fit with the theory of evolution, and the principle of ‘uniformity’ that is axiomatic to so much of modern scientific thought? Clearly, it doesn’t at all.
The fossil evidence, and NASA, and the Egyptian / Phoenician influences in the Saharan rock drawings all suggest this Sahara dried out in historical (i.e. modern) times.
Let’s go back to Velikovsky:
“It appears that a large part of the region was occupied by an inland lake, or vast marsh, known to the ancients as Lake Triton. In a stupendous catastrophe, the lake emptied itself into the Atlantic, and the sand on its bottom and shores was left behind, forming a desert when tectonic movements sealed off the springs that fed the lake. The land of ‘pastures and forests’ became a desert of sand.”
Lake Tritonis was a large body of fresh water in northern Africa that was described in many ancient texts. Classical-era Greek writers placed the lake in what today is southern Tunisia. In details of the late myths and personal observations related by these historians, the lake was said to be named after Triton.
Velikovsky originally wrote this in 1955, and was ridiculed by nearly all the scientists of his day. Guess what scientists working with Nasa discovered seven years ago, in 2010?
“Beneath the sands of the Sahara Desert scientists have discovered evidence of a prehistoric megalake. Formed some 250,000 [sic] years ago when the Nile River pushed through a low channel near Wadi Tushka, it flooded the eastern Sahara, creating a lake that at its highest level covered more than 42,000 square miles.
This ‘megalake’ was written up in Geology magazine in 2010, here: Evidence for Pleistocene lakes in the Tushka region, south Egypt. And do you know why that’s so interesting? Because according to Maxwell’s own account, this lake is ‘consistent’ with Neolithic and Palelithic settlements in the area. I.e. according to modern science itself, it dates to between 21,000 (sic) and 6,000 years ago.
So why are they skirting over the earlier dating - plus the huge number of historical accounts of a massive lake in this area - to claim these lakes are from the so-called ‘pleistocene’ era 250,000 years ago?
SAME IDEA, THIS TIME WITH THE ARABIAN DESERT
And it’s not only the Sahara desert that used to be lush, green pasture land and forest. We meet a similar story again, this time with the Arabian desert.
St John Philby wrote in his book Arabia in 1930 that it’s a:
“certainty beyond challenge that when the icecap of the last Glacial period covered a large part of the northern hemisphere (i.e. Europe), at least three great rivers flowed from west to east across the whole width of the [Arabian] Peninsula.”
Shortly after writing this, Philby returned to Arabia, to the ‘Wabar’ site. This is how Wikipedia describes his trek:
After a month's journey through wastes so harsh that even some of the camels died, on 2 February 1932 Philby arrived at a patch of ground about a half a square kilometre in size, littered with chunks of white sandstone, black glass, and chunks of iron meteorite.
More about the meteorites in a minute.
Similarly, Bertram Thomas wrote in The Syrian Desert in 1937 that Arabia was once home to a large lake, that somehow disappeared.
There’s another strange phenomena to be found in the Arabian desert, called the ‘hammadas’ - 28 fields of broken and burned stones which sharp edges and black scorch marks. Some of these fields are huge - 100 miles in diameter - and the stones are packed so tightly within them they’re almost impossible to traverse. (See the pic, above).
These stones didn’t come from a volcano - there is precious little lava in the hammadas, and also the area covered by the stones is too large to be accounted for by a volcanic explosion that flung a mass of stones to the earth.
Back in 1955, Velikovsky summised the following about the hammadas:
“It appears that the blackened and broken stones of the harras [hammadas] are trains of meteorites, scorched in their passage through the atmosphere, that broke during their fall… or on reaching the ground. Billions of stones in a single harra indicate that the trains of meteorites were very large, and can be classified as comets.”
In 1966, a journalist working for National Geographic, Thomas J Abercrombie, went back to Wabar, and found the ‘biggest iron meteorite ever found in Arabia…its weight almost two and a half tons.’ A couple more large meteorites were duly uncovered in the desert sands at Wabar, and recovered for analyses.
If you want to know what these meteorites might have to do with the ‘missing’ Arabian lake somehow turning into the current Arabian desert, read on.
This from Wikipedia:
“The layout of the impact area suggests that the body fell at a shallow angle, and was moving at typical meteorite entry speeds of 40,000 to 60,000 km/h. Its total mass was more than 3,500 tonnes. The shallow angle presented the body with more air resistance than it would have encountered at a steeper angle, and it broke up in the air into at least four pieces before impact. The biggest piece struck with an explosion roughly equivalent to the atom bomb that levelled Hiroshima.”
Once again, it stretches credulity that a ‘Hiroshima’ type blast - and remember, there were multiple pieces of meteorite that impacted the Arabian peninsula at the same time, we’re only talking about the biggest piece here - could have occurred 250 years ago and none of the locals would have mentioned it or noticed it.
This might be the reason for the faulty ‘thermoluminescence dating’:
Thermoluminescence dating (TL) is the determination, by means of measuring the accumulated radiation dose, of the time elapsed since material containing crystalline minerals was either heated (lava, ceramics) or exposed to sunlight (sediments). As a crystalline material is heated during measurements, the process of thermoluminescence starts. Thermoluminescence emits a weak light signal that is proportional to the radiation dose absorbed by the material. It is a type of luminescence dating.
But there was an historical account of a lush, green ‘Atlantis of Arabia’, which disappeared beneath the waves of sand following a huge catastrophe within the last few thousand years.
This from Wikipedia:
In 1930, the explorer Bertram Thomas had been approaching the southern edge of the Rub' al Khali ("The Empty Quarter"). It was Thomas' ambition to be the first European to cross the great sands but, as he began his camel journey, he was told by his Bedouin escorts of a lost city whose wicked people had attracted the wrath of God and had been destroyed.
Today, the Rub Al Khali desert is around 1,000 jm long and 500 km wide, and its reddish-orange sand dunes sometimes rise to a height of 250 metres. But sure enough, modern geologists have found ample evidence that in the very recent past, the area was home to a number of lakes.
This from Wikipedia:
“Along the middle length of the desert there are a number of raised, hardened areas of calcium carbonate, gypsum, marl, or clay that were once the site of shallow lakes. These lakes existed during periods from 6,000 to 5,000 years ago and 3,000 to 2,000 years ago. The lakes are thought to have formed as a result of "cataclysmic rainfall" similar to present-day monsoon rains and most probably lasted for only a few years. However, lakes in the Mundafen area in the southwest of the Rub' al Khali show evidence of lasting longer, up to 800 years, due to increased runoff from the Tuwaiq Escarpment.
(Very probably because they got completely pulverized by the multi ‘Hiroshima bomb’ type blasts…)
HIDING THE FACTS IN PLAIN VIEW
So, the scientists - lots of them - admit that the Southern Arabian Peninsula used to be lush, green areas covered with lakes, teeming with all sorts or animals, and lived in by human being between 2-3000 years ago (i.e. well within historical times - what’s being described post-dates the building of the Jewish first temple, in Jerusalem).
Then, everything changed overnight - but not by gradual drips and a creeping accumulation of sand. Rather, one big, ‘Hiroshima’ x 4 explosion hit the area, turning it into barren dust and desert overnight.
In 1966, they found four existing meteorites buried in the sand, but countless numbers more of them disintegrated upon impact and became the ‘hammadas’ or fields of meteoric rubble and scorched glass that litters the desert.
The following paragraph about the desert in question sums up modern science’s ‘schizo’ attitude to really understanding, and accurately dating, the history of the planet:
“It was long believed that the region had been this way since about 1600 BCE, after shifts in the Earth's axis increased temperatures and decreased precipitation, which led to the abrupt desertification of North Africa about 5,400 years ago. However, this theory has recently been called into dispute, when samples taken from several 7 million year old sand deposits led scientists to reconsider the timeline for desertification.
All the hard evidence showing that people lived there in historical times, and all the fossil evidence showing the huge amount of recent flora and fauna in the area are tossed out because of faulty radiometric dating techniques that (apparently…) show the sand is seven million years’ old….
So how does that explain all the human settlement, and animal fossils, and 30,000 petroglyphs that date back to around 3,000 years’ ago? How did all that stuff come to be in a massive, inhospitable desert that’s 7 milllion years old [sic]?
It makes much more sense to say the following:
There have clearly been huge changes in the amount of water on the planet and in the atmosphere well within the last 6,000 and even 3,000 years. This will clearly effect the results for carbon 14 dating, and skew them to make substances being tested appear to be much older than they really are.
At the same time, any area that’s been hit with the force of (at least…) four Hiroshima nukes will clearly return very skewed data when it comes to other radiometric dating methods including thermoluminescence, which is what geologists typically use to date sediment and stuff like sand.
The Sahara and the Arabian deserts were paradises less than 6,000 years ago, and probably even less than 3,000 years ago. All this changed when the planet was hit by a meteor field that accompanied a massive comet, which came so close to the earth it ‘tilted the earth’s axis’ - there is no way this could happen from internal forces.
The last point to say is that all this completely contradicts the theories underpinning evolution, geochronology and the principle of uniformity.
Yet these are the facts.
So when are the scientists going to start figuring out this stuff for themselves?
Who hasn’t heard of the Himalayas? Who hasn’t heard of Mount Everest, that with a summit of 29,000 ft ranks as the highest mountain in the world?
The tops of these mountains are a frozen wasteland with precious few signs of life. It’s too high up for birds, even. But apparently, at some point in the past Mount Everest was home to marine animals, fish and mollusks, the remains of which are found in abundance in this area.
This also meant that the mighty peaks of the Himalayas had at some point lain under the sea - but as to when the Himalayas went from being a seabed to the highest mountain range in the world, that was a matter of guesswork.
Waving a finger in the air, the geologists decided that it must have been many, many millions of years’ ago, and definitely nothing that could have occurred within modern times….
This is the standard explanation that ‘geochronology’ likes to foist on an unsuspecting public (taken from the Encyclopedia Britannica):
“The collision of India and southern Asia began between 50 million and 40 million years ago, during the Eocene Epoch, and continues today. The collision produced two main geologic results. First, it began to block the westward-flowing Tethys seaway near the Equator, a process completed with the junction of Africa and Asia near present-day Iran roughly 16 million to 14 million years ago.
It all sounds so convincingly scientific, doesn’t it? Modern geochronology is adamant that no mountains popped out of the ground anytime recently, and certainly not within the timescale of modern man, i.e. the last 5-6000 years.
Yet the fossils being found in the mountains tell a very different story. In 1939, Swiss geologist Arnold Heim wrote in: The Throne of the Gods, an Account of the First Swiss Expedition to the Himalayas, that the sedimentary deposits found in this ‘ancient’ sea bottom that had now risen more than 5000 ft upwards contained Paleolithic fossils.
This comes from Wikipedia:
“The Paleolithic (or "Palaeolithic")/ˌpæliːəˈlɪθɪk/ age is a prehistoric period of human history distinguished by the development of the most primitive stone tools and covers roughly 95% of human technological prehistory. It extends from the earliest known use of stone tools, probably by Homo habilis initially, 2.6 million years ago, to the end of the Pleistocene around 10,000 BP.”
To be clear, ‘paleolithic’ means the stone age, the time when human beings used primarily stone and bone implements. Again, even according to modern geology’s own chronology, these dates don’t add up. On the one hand, they’re telling us that the Himalayas arose 40-50 million years ago, and on the other they’re saying that the fossils found at the top of the Himalayas, in the Kashmir region, date to between 2.6 million and 12,000 (sic) years ago.
Helmut de Terra, the explorer that discovered these elevated fossils in Kashmir wrote in: Studies on the Ice Age in India and Associated Human Cultures, 1939, that:
“The archaeological records prove that early Paleolithic man inhabited the adjoining plains”,
because he’d found an abundance of Paleolithic stone implements at settlements nearby.
But the rise of the Himalayas didn’t stop there. According to De Terra, the
“tilting of terraces and lacustrine beds” indicated a “continued uplift of the Himalayan tract” during the last phases of the Ice Age.”
To be clear, modern geochronology states that the Paleolithic age was ended by the last so-called ‘mini’ Ice Age. To put this in plain English, De Terra found that the Himalayas continued to rise even as little as 12,000 (sic) years ago!
Again, even this dating is based on the stone age implements that were found there - yet many primitive societies continued to live in the ‘stone age’ well into Victorian times, and even beyond, despite the standard scientific dating of 3.4 million - 2,500 years ago.
HOW IS SCIENCE COMING UP WITH THESE DATES?
While we’re on the whole dating subject, guess what? Yes, that’s right - stone age implements are typically dated using carbon 14 (which we already discussed in THIS post) and / or something called K-Ar dating, which measures the loss of radioactive argon isotopes. Here’s just one of the assumptions used when dating things with K-Ar:
“The sample must have remained a closed system since the event being dated. Thus, there should have been no loss or gain of 40K or 40 Ar*, other than by radioactive decay of 40K.
Again, go research this yourselves, but what they are basically telling you is that just like they assume that the amount of carbon has been stable in the earth’s atmosphere for eons, so has the amount or argon, but that they keep finding that this simply doesn’t pan out in practice, especially in areas of ‘complex geological history’ - i.e. where big upheavals have taken place.
If you go look at what they say about the Stone Age dating and theory itself, there are enormous holes all over the place, disagreements, and huge statements based solely on opinion and ‘belief’ - NOT facts (other than carbon 14 and potassium-argon dating…)
So what we’re left with factually is that the Himalayas arose in the stone age of man, and that
“The transition out of the Stone Age occurred between 6000 BCE and 2500 BCE for much of humanity living in North Africa and Eurasia.”
But - people living in the Middle East were already in the so-called Bronze Age, and even the so-called Iron Age at this time, while other communities continued to live in the ‘stone age’ well into modern Victorian times.
To return to the Himalayas, De Terra found polished stone implements from the ‘neolothic’ or new stone age in the loess (see definition below) at the top of the Himalayas. This suggests very strongly that the Himalayas arose between 15,000 BCE and 2000 BCE - according to modern science’s own dating!
The Neolithic (/ˌniːəˈlɪθɪk/ ( listen)) was a period in the development of human technology, beginning about 15,200 BC, according to the ASPRO chronology, in some parts of the Middle East, and later in other parts of the world and ending between 4500 and 2000 BC.
De Terra wasn’t the only one to come to this stunning conclusion. Other geologists including R Finsterwalder, Arnold Heim and August Gansser also came to the conclusion that the mountain ranges in Western China (next to Tibet) were of very recent age.
“The highest mountains in the world are also the youngest” wrote Heim and Gansser in 1939.
Almost 80 years’ later, modern geology is still telling us that the Himalayas arose ’40-50 million years’ ago’ - ignoring every scrap of evidence to the contrary, including the fact that stone age tools and Paleolithic fossils were found at the very top of these peaks.
If you look to the mountain ranges of the Andes, you’ll find a similar story. Close to Lake Titicaca on the border of Bolivia and Peru, in 1910 explorers found a massive city - built up a mountain some 12,500 ft high.
Writing in The Incas of Peru in 1910, Sir Clemens Markham said:
“Such a region is only capable of sustaining a scanty population of hardy mountaineers and laborers.”
Yet the people who built this city and lived there in their thousands not only did all that up a very high mountain where most crops don’t even ripen, but also somehow moved a bunch of massive stones up to this peak, to build the walls of their city.
To quote Velikovsky:
“Further investigation into the topography of the Andes and the fauna of Lake Titicaca, together with a chemical analysis of this lake and others on the same plateau established that the plateau was one time at sea level, or 12, 500 ft lower than it is today….
There are other ancient cities built with massive stones in the South American mountains that bear this out, including Ollantaytambo in Peru, and the Peruvian fortress / monastery at Ollantayparubo, which Bellamy described as:
“perche[d] upon a tiny plateau some 13,000 ft above sea level, in an uninhabitable region of precipices, chasms and gorges.”
The huge stones that built it must have been brought “from a considerable distance… down steep slopes, across swift and turbulent rivers, and up precipitous rockfaces which hardly allow a foothold.”
Aerial photographs of the Andes show the area is riddled with old settlements and agricultural terraces - at altitudes that today are only visited, briefly, by mountain climbers.
Clearly, many mountain chains in the world are very, very young, and only attained their heights in the last few thousand years, i.e. in the modern age of man.
We all know that the age of a strata of rock is determined by the fossils found within it. It follows that the older the rock is, the lower down it must be in the strata, because clearly, newer things accrue upon older things.
That’s what science, that’s what modern geology, teaches us and of course it sounds eminently sensible and correct.
It doesn’t actually reflect the reality of what’s really going on with the planet’s mountain ranges and rock formations. Writing in Our Mobile Earth, geologist Reginald Aldworth Daly revealed that:
“During the building of the Alps, gigantic slabs of rock, thousands of feet thick, hundreds of miles long, and tens of miles wide, were thrust up and then over, relatively to the rocks beneath…
If we go according to standard geological dating, the Alps in the Swiss canton of Glarus are a complete enigma. The lower strata have been dated to the Tertiary period (i.e. the age of mammals), which science dates as’ 65 million to 2.58 million years ago’; while their higher strata have been dated to the Permian period (preceding the age of reptiles), conventionally dated at between 299 to 251 million years ago; and the Jurassic period (the age of reptiles), dated conventionally at between 199.6 to 145.5 million years ago.
How on earth did rock stratas dated to 65 million years ago (at it’s oldest) come to be lying on top of rock dated 145 million years ago (at its oldest)? There are two options: either, the dating of rock according to the fossils they contain is just plain wrong, OR the mountains were actually physically shifted, intact, into a new location.
Let’s be clear that geologists - and anyone with any regard whatsoever for evolution - could never accept the first option, even if was clear as day. So, even in the scientific world, the fantastic idea that a number of older mountains were somehow physically moved from one location, and set atop more recent mountains is the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY’S own view of what most have occurred.
“The problem of mountain-making is a vexing one,” concurred Harvard Professor FK Mather, writing in Science in 1942. “Many [mountains] are composed of tangentially compressed and overthrust rocks that indicate scores of miles of circumferential shortening in the Earth’s crust. Radial shrinkage is woefully inadequate to cause the observed amount of horizontal compression…Geologists have not found a satisfactory escape from this dilemma.”
Before we continue with the fascinating subject of ‘moving mountains’, let’s just pause a moment to go back to the authentic Jewish sources on the subject of creating and moving mountains, where we find the following (You can find a much more detailed discussion of this over on Emunaroma, HERE.)
Midrash Mechilta, Yitro, haChodesh 4:
Lets’ be clear that we’re not just talking about one weird rock formation here; the examples of massive mountains moving tens and even hundreds of miles across land occur in a great many places in the world, including:
To name but a few. All the mountains weigh billions of tons. Are the geologists really expecting us to believe that some friction between tectonic plates or an earthquake - even a major earthquake - catapulted all these mountains a hundred miles away?
To quote Velikovsky: “No force acting from inside the earth, puffing inward or pushing outward, could have created these overthrusts. Only twisting could have produced them. It could hardly have occurred if the rotation and revolution of our planet had never been disturbed.”
Here's what plasma physicist James McCanney has to say about the subject:
 George McCready Price, writing in Common-sense Geology, 1922
“During the close passage of a large comet, the ‘gravitational wave’ is sufficient to move waves of land and rock at speeds in excess of a thousand miles per hour, across land.”
But the mountain mystery doesn’t end there.
Stone and bone artefacts used by ‘Stone Age Man’ - conventionally dated to the Pleistocene Era, or Ice Age - were found at the very top of the Alps, in a number of caverns. Why would Stone Age Man chose to make his home at the top of a freezing cold, 8,000 foot high mountain?
Amazing as it sounds, there is an abundance of evidence to show that the Alps and other mountains, arose and ended up in their present locations within the last few thousand years - well within the era of modern man.
“Mountain uplifts amounting to many thousands of feet have occurred within the Pleistocene epoch [Ice Age] itself,” explained Professor Flint, in Glacial Geology and the Pleistocene Epoch. And this happened in: “the Cordillerian mountain system in both North and South America, the Alps-Caucausus-Central Asian system, and many others.”
But really, we’re not even talking about tens of thousands of years here, we’re talking about a time when historical records were being kept by the human race, and writing had been developed, i.e. the last 5-6000 years.
Writing about the Asian mountains in Research in Asia II, explorer Bailey Willis said: “The great mountain chains challenge credulity by their extreme youth.”
In the next post, we’ll explore in more detail how the geological data and fossil evidence from mountain ranges across the world, including the towering peak of Mount Everest itself, poses one of the single biggest challenges to modern science and its ‘enlightened’ geologists’ view of how and when the world came about.
fire and brimstone hit hollywood the same time it hit sodom and gomorrah - the rancho la brea tar pits
While it’s sadly not unusual to hear that there are a bunch of fossilized, dangerous animals roaming around Hollywood, the creatures I’m going to introduce you to in this post mostly had four legs, and were found in a massive asphalt pit in the LA neighborhood of Rancho La Brea.
Before we get into this post - which I have a feeling is going to be one of my favorites on this subject - let me first introduce you to a definition of ‘bitumen’, as we’re going to be hearing a lot about this substance.
Here’s how it’s defined in American by Colliers:
Sometimes, bitumen is also called ‘tar’ (as in ‘tarmac’), and it’s thick, black, sticky stuff that’s actually high flammable.
Over 140 years’ ago, industrialists noticed that naturally-forming bitumen, or tar, or asphalt was oozing out of the ground at a place called Rancho La Brea, to the west of what was then the nascent city of Los Angeles, but which today butts right up against Hollywood and other LA suburbs.
Very quickly, they started mining this asphalt and shipping thousands of tons of it off to San Francisco, to pave the roads and waterproof the roofs. But a fortune in tarmac is not all they found in Rancho La Brea - they also discovered an absolutely enormous collection of dead animal remains, many of which were perfectly preserved in the black, sticky ooze.
Before we continue, let me give you the ‘official’ version of how all these animals - which included more than 700 sabre toothed tigers, wolves bisons, horses, mammoths, and also a number of birds, including peacocks - came to be in the Rancho La Brea tarpits, courtesy Wikipedia:
“This seepage has been happening for tens of thousands of years [sic]. From time to time, the asphalt would form a deposit thick enough to trap animals, and the surface would be covered with layers of water, dust, or leaves. Animals would wander in, become trapped, and eventually die. Predators would enter to eat the trapped animals and also become stuck.
Got that? Over ‘thousands’ of years, thousands of animals somehow wondered into these tar pits, get stuck, eventually die, and then hundreds of sabre tooth tigers and wolves would gather round to feast on the emaciated skeleton of whatever it was that got trapped, also then getting trapped and dying in the tar pits.
Oh yes, and radiocarbon dating tells us that all this happened around 38,000 years ago…
Now, are you ready for the real version of events?
THREE MASSIVE HOLES IN THEORY
The first hole in the theory is simply the sheer number of animal remains that were recovered from the pit. The skulls of wolves and sabre-toothed tigers were being recovered at the rate of 20 per square yard.
That’s an awful lot of carnivores fighting over a veal chop….
And that’s another problem with the theory, because overwhelmingly, the pit contained the remains of carnivores, and not herbivores.
But the most telling problem with this theory is that nearly all the skeletons recovered from Rancho La Brea - greatly to the surprise of the scientists working there - were smashed to pieces.
Writing in Fossils, Lull averred that the bones were ‘splendidly preserved’ in the hardened asphalt, but another chap called Price, writing in The New Geology, elaborated that they were
‘broken, mashed, contorted and mixed in a most heterogenous mass, such as could never have resulted from the chance trapping and burial of a few stragglers.”
So, if they didn’t ‘fall in’ to the bitumen, how did these animals come to be preserved in it - in their thousands - but with their bodies all smashed to pieces?
CRUDE OIL AND COMETS
When the volatile elements evaporate out of crude oil, that’s when you get asphalt, tar, and other bituminous substances.
Here’s the thing about bitumen: it can also fall from the sky.
In fact, the modern plasma scientist James McCanney writes at length about this subject, and explains that instead of petroleum deposits somehow forming from ‘millions’ of years’ of decomposing ancient forests (and to this day, no-one has managed to explain how so many of these ‘ancient forests’ apparently grew two miles under oceanic seabeds…) petroleum is often present as part of the chemical mix contained in the ‘tail’ of a comet.
In the Torah’s account of Sodom and Gomorrah, five cities are described as being wiped out by ‘sulfur and fire’ raining down, ‘out of heaven’. The Jewish commentator Sforno explains that this sulfur and fire weren’t natural, ‘earthly’ phenomena, but something extra-terrestrial. I.e. - they fell on the planet from outer space.
Sulfur is a key component of crude oil, the stuff that is refined to make the petroleum we use to power our cars, amongst other things. Here’s what the petroleum.co.uk website says about the sulfur content of crude oil:
The Torah tells us very clearly that sulfur-containing crude oil ‘rained’ out of the sky, as the plain where the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are located were overturned, and then we’re told that the whole place appeared to be ‘smoking’ like a lime kiln - and all this happened at the time of Abraham the Patriarch, 2048 in the Hebrew calendar, or 3,729 years ago, at the time of writing.
The following comes from THIS article on Aish.com:
"Fire and brimstone" is a common expression used to describe the sermon of an overzealous preacher, but exactly what is brimstone? The Hebrew word for brimstone in the Biblical verse is gafrit and is usually understood to mean sulfur. The Targum Yonathan ben Uziel translates the word into Aramaic as kivraitah.
HOW THE HYDROCARBONS APPEARED ON THE SCENE
So, we know bitumen and sulfur were falling on the earth around the Dead Sea area just under 4,000 years’ ago, i.e. well within modern human history, as these archeological remains show.
But while the geologists working at the Dead Sea like to say that ‘flammable hydrocarbons’ got spewed up into the air by some sort of volcanic activity from below, what REALLY happened is that these ‘flammable hydrocarbons’ rained down from above, as part of a comet-induced catastrophe of epic proportions.
Let’s go back to Rancho La Brea, and Velikovsky’s explanation of what occurred:
“Could it be that at this particular spot, large herds of wild beasts, most carnivorous, were overwhelmed by falling gravel, tempests, tides and raining bitumen? Similar finds in asphalt have been unearthed in two other places in California, at Carpinteria and McKittrick.”
One last thing to note is that human remains were also found in the La Brea tar pit, and that human was a ‘modern’ human, i.e. one of us. This stuff didn’t happen 38,000 years’ ago, as claimed, it happened less than 4,000 years’ ago.
A WORD ON HOLLYWOOD
When I started writing this post, I didn’t know that Rancho La Brea was located in the area of Hollywood (or rather, the other way around.)
In recent weeks, the comparisons between the behavior and morals of Hollywood and the behavior and morals of the biblical Sodom and Gomorrah have been ever-more starker. So it’s very interesting to note that probably at the same time that Sodom and Gomorrah were being wiped off the map by a Divine visitation of ‘fire and brimstone’, the exact same thing appeared to be happening on the other side of the globe, at the future location of Hollywood.
It certainly makes a person think.
Victorian researchers discovered a curious thing in the town of Plymouth, on the English Channel. Clefts in the limestone rocks there were packed with the bones of horses, polar bears, mammoths, hippopotami, rhinoceroses and bison.
To quote Joseph Prestwich, a geology professor at Oxford who was considered to the pre-eminent expert about the geology of the ice age in England, and who wrote something verbosely titled: On certain phenomena belonging to the close of the last geological period and on their bearing upon the tradition of the flood, in 1885, these bones were:
“broken into innumerable fragments. No skeleton is found entire. The separate bones, in fact, have been dispersed in the most irregular manner and without any bearing to their relative position in the skeleton. Neither do they show wear, nor have they been gnawed by beasts of prey, though they occur with the bones of hyena, wolf, bear and lion.”
This perplexing phenomenon was also turning up in coastal rock formations in Devonshire, and also in Pembrokeshire, Wales. Prestwich wondered in astonishment why none of these skeletons were whole, why they weren’t weathered, and why none of the bones had been gnawed by other animals.
HOW DID ALL THESE ANIMALS GET CRUSHED TO DEATH SO QUICKLY?
The animals couldn’t have just somehow fallen, alive, into these crevices. “The mere fall [would not] have been sufficient to have caused the extensive breakage the bones have undergone,” mused Prestwich.
And this wasn’t just something he was seeing in the British Isles, either. The valleys around Paris, and the tops of a number of isolated hills in France also contained a treasure trove of crushed and mangled animal bones.
Prestwich described ‘one very striking example’ in Burgundy, a 1430 ft high hill called Mont Genay, ‘capped with a BRECCIA that contained the bones of reindeers, horses and mammoths, to name but a few.
Breccia ( /ˈbrɛtʃiə/ or /ˈbrɛʃiə/) is a rock composed of broken fragments of minerals or rock cemented together by a fine-grained matrix that can be similar to or different from the composition of the fragments.
On another French Hill called Mont de Sautenay, located between Dijon and Lyons, French Professor Albert Gaudry found another fissure filled with animal bones. “Why should so many wolves, bears, horses and oxen have ascended a hill isolated on all sides?” Professor Gaudry wanted to know.
Prestwich was also puzzled by the fact that none of the bones showed any evidence of having been mauled by beasts of prey, or eaten by people. He wrote: “Nevertheless, the remains of wolf were particularly abundant, together with those of cave lion, bear, rhinoceros, horse, ox and deer. It is not possible to suppose that animals of such different natures, and of such different habitats, would in life ever have been together.”
Yet, their remains showed they had certainly died together.
But what had caused their death? Prestwich conjectured that: “we may suppose all these animals had fled [there] to escape the rising waters.”
The same story was told again and again, as animal bones poured out of crevices on the British Isles, the French Mediterranean coast, on Corsica, Sardinia and Sicily and also the Rock of Gibraltar.
“The bones are most likely broken into thousands of fragments - none are worn or rolled, nor any of them gnawed, though so many carnivores then lived on the rock,” mused Prestwich. “A great and common danger, such as a great flood, alone, could have driven together the animals of the plains and of the crags and caves.”
When examining the ‘extraordinary quantity’ of hippopotamus bones that were found in the hills of Palermo, Sicily, Prestwich wrote:
“How could this bone breccia have been accumulated? No predaceous animals could have brought together and left such a collection of bones….The extremely fresh condition of the bones, proved by the retention of so large a proportion of animal matter show that the event was geologically, comparatively recent…the fact that animals of all ages were involved in the catastrophe” showed that it was “sudden”.
But what was the ‘catastrophe’ that could have caused such widespread destruction of animal life, so suddenly and violently? Prestwich believed it was some sort of enormous flood, or deluge.
“The animals in the plain of Palermo naturally retreated, as the waters advanced, deeper in the ampitheatre of hills…the animals must have thronged together in vast multitudes, crushing into the more accessible caves, and swarming over the ground at their entrance, until overtaken by the waters and destroyed…Rocky debris and large blocks from the sides of the hills were hurled down by the current of water, crushing and smashing the bones.”
THIS 'DELUGE' HAPPENED IN MODERN TIMES
And when did this happen? Not millions and billions of years ago, but in recent times, within the purview of modern man. Prestwich stated that it was “impossible to account for the specific geological phenomena…by any agency of which our time has offered us experience…The agency, whatever it was, must have acted with sufficient violence to smash the bones…Nor could this have been the work of a long time, for the entombed bones, though much broken, are singularly fresh…Certain communities of early man must have suffered in the general catastrophe.”
Let’s just pause here to remind ourselves that one of the two foundations of radiocarbon dating, of which so many of the claims about the ‘proven antiquity’ of the world rest, is that the amount of water in the oceans of the world should have remained relatively stable, to provide a fixed benchmark for the amount of time it takes radiocarbon to decay.
Here is clear, incontrovertible proof that THIS SIMPLY HASN’T BEEN THE CASE! And we’re talking about modern times, when our ancestors were walking around.
Prestwich - who again, was a professor of geology at Oxford University and one of the most well-respected geologists in academic circles - was of the view that something had occurred, within modern times, to cause the European continent to sink beneath the waves, to a depth of as much as 1000 ft, in some places, before the continent was elevated again.
He suggested that the time when this occurred - based on the geologic date he was encountering - was when Egypt was entering the Bronze Age (starting 3200 BCE), and Europe was entering the Neolithic Age - i.e. around a maximum of 5,200 years ago.
When does the Torah tell us Noah’s flood happened? In the Hebrew year of 1656, or around 4100 years ago - bang smack in the middle of the Bronze Age. (As a side note, the Midrash also says that the world was also partially flooded in the time of Enosh, too, and also at the time of the dispersion, i.e. after the tower of Babel was being built, so ginormous earth-changing floods are not an usual feature of the last few thousand years.)
THE CROMER FOREST-BED
There’s a forest bed in Cromer, Norfolk that kind of sums up the problem the British Isles poses to geology.
The deepest layer of this ‘forest bed’, as the name suggests, is a stretch of ground densely covered with tree stumps, often with interlocking roots, and mostly in the upright position. In the midst of this forest past, bones from sabre-toothed tigers, bears, straight-tusked elephants, rhinoceros, bison, plus glutton and musk ox (two species exclusively found in much colder, Northern climates) were all found mixed together.
How did a Tropics-loving elephant and an artic-loving musk ox come to be in the same patch of Norfolk forest at the same time, and to die there? What’s more, all the plants reclaimed from the forest bed showed that the climate and geographical conditions were ‘very similar to those of Norfolk at the present day’ (W. Wright, writing in the Quaternary Ice Age 1937).
The next layer above the forest bed in Cromer contained artic plants ‘such as to indicate a lowering of temperature of about 20°’ (Ibid). Then, there’s a marine bed which includes creatures that required a temperate climate.
How did all these various creatures and plants from across the globe wind up togehter in a forest bed in Norfolk?
Let’s quote Velikovsky:
“It would appear that this agglomeration was brought together by a moving force that rushed overland, left in its wake marine sand deep-water creatures, swept animals and trees from the south to the north, and then, turning from the polar regions back towards the warm regions, mixed its burden of arctic plants and animals in the same sediment where it had left those from the south.”
To put this into plainer English, the UK was hit by at least one massive tsunami, plus one defacto ‘ice age’ - which quickly disappeared as fast as it came - within the last few thousand years.
Geology Professor R.F. Flint, from Yale summed it up with admirable reserve when he said: “All in all, British glacial stratigraphic research has encountered exceptional difficulties.”
But those problems were by no means limited to the UK.
In the next post, we’ll see how these strange groupings of crushed animal remains were also found in many other places in the world too, not least the good ol’ USA.
In 1840, a young Swiss naturalist called Louis Agassiz published his new theory of ‘ice ages’, which was based on his observation of the glaciers in the Alps, which could advance or retreat a few feet a year.
Each advance of the glacial ice sheet would shove loose rocks to the side, forming ‘lateral moraines’, while those rocks pushed out in front formed ‘terminal moraines’. When the ice subsequently melted and retreated, these stone ‘moraines’ would - according to Agassiz - clearly show where the ice sheet had reached to, before retreating.
Writing in Etudes sur les glaciers, Agassiz stated:
“The surface of Europe, previously adorned with tropical vegetation and populated by herds of huge elephants, enormous hippopotami, and gigantic carnivore, was suddenly buried under a vast mantle of ice, covering plains, lakes, seas and plateaus.”
ICE AGES HAPPEN OVERNIGHT, NOT OVER A MILLION YEARS
But while modern science, with its axiomatic belief in the interminably slow pace of evolution, immediately rushed to state that these ice ages lasted for many hundreds of thousands, and even millions, of years, Agassiz’ view was that they were catastrophic events: they took the world by surprise, began instantly, and lasted no more than a couple of centuries.
In that same work, Agassiz stated that these ‘mini ice ages’ came to an end when the ignaeous (i.e. volcanic, made of magma) interior of the earth began to heat up again, resulting in a great deal of seismographic activity, and a general ‘warming up’ of the atmosphere as volcanoes belched forth their fire, and new mountain ranges occurred literally overnight.
In Agassiz’ view, the Western Alps were younger than the frozen corpses of the mammoths that were still being dug out - and eaten - in Siberia.
While the proto-evolutionists, with the avowed atheist Charles Lyell at their head, rushed to adopt whichever parts of the ice age theory suited them, they discounted Agassiz assertion that ice ages came about due to catastrophic events, and were relatively short lived affairs.
Lyell conjured up a million year span for what Agassiz had termed the ‘Great Ice Age’ that he estimated had occurred between the Tertiary and Recent period (with absolutely no scientific evidence to back this up), happily claimed that these continental ice sheets were responsible for all those otherwise disturbing erratic boulders being found all over the place, and the evolutionary bandwagon rolled on.
According to Lyell et al, this new ‘ice age’ theory explained how 10,000 ton erratic boulders that clearly hadn’t originated locally had come to be found at the top of cliffs, and across oceans many thousands of miles away: the continental ice sheet had ‘pushed’ them there.
YOU NEED MOUNTAINS TO GET GLACIERS...
But not everyone was convinced.
One of the leading antagonists to theory of evolution, and to Lyell’s explanation of how erratic boulders had somehow been ‘pushed’ up mountains thousands of miles away by continental ice sheets was a man called Roderick Murchison, another leading British geologist and member of the Geological Society who was actually knighted for his contributions to the field.
In 1845, after Murchison had spent many months observing the erratic boulders flung all over the great plains of the Russian empire, Murchison wrote:
“Seeing that there are no mountains whatever from which a glacier can ever have been propelled in southern Sweden, Finland, or north-eastern Russian, and yet these regions are powerfully abraded, scored and polished” -
Something other than a slow-moving continental ice sheet must have caused these phenomena.
Murchison believed that the ‘something’ in question was probably some sort of huge oceanic eruption, or enormous tidal wave, that had perhaps been repeated on more than one occasions.
Again, let’s just pause to make the point that while we do see that ice sheets in the polar regions of the world expand and contract, these small, cyclical incursions and retractions have never been proven to have achieved even a fraction of the actions in the world that the evolutionists have attributed to them.
Just as evolutionists like to argue that ‘micro’ evolution - where a particular plant, organism or animal can and does adapt to its environment in small ways over time - automatically ‘proves’ that amoebas turned into human beings, the same enormous -and completely unproven - jumps in logic are also required for the modern ‘scientific’ approach to ice ages.
Let’s return to 1865, 25 years after Agassiz had published his ‘ice age’ theory to wide acclaim, where the now famous, senior naturalist was suddenly presented with a huge challenge to his theory.
HOW DID GLACIERS MAKE IT DOWN TO EQUATORIAL BRAZIL AND AFRICA, THE HOTTEST PLACES IN THE WORLD?
On a trip to equatorial Brazil, Agassiz noticed that all the things that he’d stated were due to drifting continental sheets, like drift accumulations, scratched rocks erratic boulders, polished stones and fluted valleys, were staring him in the face in one of the very hottest tropical regions of the world.
Agassiz’ woes multiplied, as more reports came in from equatorial Africa showing the same thing, and even more perplexingly, the marks in Africa and Madagascar appeared to show that if an ice sheet had caused them, this ice sheet had spread up from the equator to cover the continent, i.e. in precisely the wrong direction.
These remnants of ice ages past were also found in India, and again seemed to have spread from the equator up across the foothills of the Himalayas, and not the other way around.
Never people to let the facts get in the way of a good (God-less…) theory, the evolutionists did what they always do when faced with uncomfortable information they couldn’t begin to explain: they banished it millions of years into the past.
They decided there must have a number of other ice ages, millions of years ago, in the so-called Permian Age. Still, some rumblings of unhappy conscience still surfaced in the scientific community.
Writing in 'The Origin and History of the Earth’ in 1937, R.T Chamberlin said:
“Some of these huge ice sheets advanced even into the tropics, where their deposits of glacier-borne debris, hundreds of feet in thickness, amaze the geologists who see them. No satisfactory explanation has yet been offered for the extent and location of these extraordinary glaciers… Glaciers, almost unbelievable because of their location and size, certainly didn’t form in deserts.”
The ‘satisfactory explanation’ that would and did explain all these strange markings and other phenomena is that the African, South American and Indian continents had been inundated, on repeated occasions, by catastrophic tidal waves and flood waters that carried many millions and billions of tons of debris, rock, and vegetation before it.
But as that explanation didn’t ‘fit’ with the theory of evolution - despite being a perfect ‘fit’ for the evidence at hand - it wasn’t even considered by the ‘modern’ scientific community.
THE ONE PLACE THE ICE AGE DIDN’T GET TO WAS THE NORTH POLE
Other anomalies also started to accrue to the Ice Age theory, as the 19th century wore on. While Victorian geologists were detecting signs of ice ages throughout the baking hot heat of Africa and the Tropics, strangely, they couldn’t find any trace of them in places like Greenland, the Arctic Circle and Siberia.
Writing in Science in 1942, R.F. Griggs stated:
“The Islands of the Arctic Archipelago were never glaciated. Neither was the interior of Alaska.”
James D. Dana, an American geologist, also noted this bizarre fact, writing:
“It is a remarkable fact that no ice mass covered the low lands of northern Siberia and more than those of Alaska.”
Stranger still, Swiss scientist O.Heer found the fossilized remains of magnolia trees and fig trees whilst examining the plant fossils found in the Arctic region, during the 1860s, which he documented in his work called Flora Arctica Fossilis, published in 1868.
To quote Velikovsky:
“Forests of exotic trees and groves of juicy, subtropical plants grew in a land that lies deep in the cold Arctic and is immersed yearly in a continuous polar night of six months’ duration.”
And these wasn’t the only strange fossils that Heer was digging up in the Arctic circle. In Spitsbergen, in the Arctic Ocean, he found pines, cypresses, elms, hazels - and even, the fossilized remains of water lilies.
Spitsbergen also disgorged a bed of coal, 30 feet thick, which bore silent witness to the fact that the area must have luxuriantly and abundantly forested, at some point in its past. In 1882, Archibald Geikie neatly summed up the conundrum in his Textbook of Geology:
“When we remember that this vegetation grew luxuriantly within 8° 15’ of the North Pole, in a region which is in darkness for half of the year, and is now almost continuously buried under snow and ice, we can realize the difficulty of the problem in the distribution of the climate which these facts present to the geologist.”
If that wasn’t bad enough, vast coral reefs were also found in Spitzbergen, as well as around Greenland, Alaska and Northern Canada, now completely covered with snow and ice.
Corals only grow in the most temperate climates in the world. It’s out of the question that coral reefs would grow in a cool area of the world, let alone one where it’s permanent night for six months of the year and nearly always frozen.
How does evolution explain Spitsbergen?
It can’t. So the evolutionists pull their favorite stunt, and simply push the problem off to many millions, and even billions ago into the past. What can’t be explained by scientific rigor can be banished by the passage of time.
Yet there is an explanation, one that has been brought down in authentic Jewish sources over the last 5,000 years, and also hinted at by modern science itself.
Compare this description found in ‘The Mysteries of Creation’, By Rabbi Dovid Brown, which talks about ‘World Number 3’ that existed within the last 5777 years, and lasted between the time of Enosh to Noah’s flood:
“Sforno (Parshat Noach 8:22) explains that:
“So long as the axis of rotation remains in nearly its present position relative to the plane of the earth’s orbit around the sun, the outer limit of the atmosphere in tropical regions must receive more of the sun’s heat than the middle latitudes, and the middle latitudes more than the polar regions. This is an invariable law…It is much more difficult to think of a cause which will raise the temperature of polar regions by some 30° F, or more, while leaving that of equatorial regions almost unchanged” - CEP Brooks, Climate through the Ages, 1949
SUMMING UP THIS SECTION:
Evolution and ‘modern’ science has no explanation for how equatorial regions were apparently covered by icy glaciers in the past while the Arctic and Siberia apparently weren’t; or why tropical plants like magnolias and water lilies once grew in the frozen wasteland of Greenland, or how luxurious forests once grew in the heart of the permanently frozen Arctic circle.
By contrast, authentic Jewish sources and commentators have been accurately discussing these matters for thousands of years.
It’s clear that the planet’s axis of rotation has shifted over the last few thousand years, as clearly set out by these authentic Jewish sources.
As to HOW this happened in alignment with laws of nature, we will get to that part of the puzzle in due course. Before then, there’s still a lot more scientific evidence that I want to present to you, first.