Category: Uncategorized

In the world of Ancient Aliens there are many questionable theories and ideas, and while most have generated a good deal of support among fans, there’s one that’s allowed a particular Ancient Alien Theorist to cash in on the internet’s obsession with trinkets.

The Golden Flyer pin or pendant, as is peddled by Georgio Tsoukalos on his website Legendary Times Books, is an homage to his theory that ancient peoples, with the help of aliens, were able to fly.  This, of course, is not supported by archaeological findings.

While not exclusive to Tsoukalos this theory gained much of its popularity following a segment of the History Channel’s Ancient Aliens which originally aired on April 20, 2010 (Ancient Aliens – Episode 1, Season 1: The Evidence).  Basically, the theory says (as you might imagine) that aliens visited our ancestors in the distant past and taught them how to build and fly various types of aircraft.

In that episode the ancient aliens team investigated several artefacts and documents that supposedly show examples of ancient flight, from Indian Vimanas (mythological flying machines described in Sanskrit epics) to Egyptian and pre-Columbian iconographic representations that supposedly depict actual ancient aircraft.  Well, the Golden Flyer is an incarnation of the latter.

The Golden Flyer, as it is now commonly known, is an example of pre-Columbian Incan funerary artwork and it is, among its counterparts, almost unanimously held by archaeologists to be the stylized depiction of reptiles, birds, insects and other animals.  They are most often made of gold, which makes dating them difficult, but most experts agree that they were made somewhere between 500-800 CE.  While ancient, they are relatively common, with several examples held in both private and public collections.  Though, to be clear, Tsoukalos’ Golden Flyer is a replica, as is the version he is peddling (in case the lapel pin mechanism fooled you).

Tsoukalos and his followers point to the aerodynamic structure of the flyer and its apparent stabilizing tail fin as proof that this cannot be an insect or a bird, because neither insects nor birds have such features.  As was suggested on the show by Tsoukalos, UFO Hunters (also on the History Channel) undertook to replicate the flyerin wood to see how well it

would fly.  Using a sort of catapult type device they launched their model and achieved some measure of success, though even the most non-aerodynamic block of wood will fly for a short while when flung out of a launcher.

These little gold trinkets are not alone in their supposed depiction of ancient airplanes though.  Discovered in 1898 in Saqqara, Egypt a model of a bird was found in an ancient tomb, and like the Incan artefacts it has been the focus of ancient alien theorists who claim that it cannot be a depiction of a bird, because it’s clearly an aircraft.  Unfortunately, that’s the really the extent of their argument in both cases.  Based on a visual inspection of the piece in question, they grandly declare that these things cannot be what mainstream science says they are, because they closely resemble modern airplanes.

The Saqqara model is thought, by some credulous Aerospace Engineers, to be a scaled down version of an ancient glider that could have been propelled by giant catapults, even though no evidence of such catapults exists.

There’s also the Egyptian “Pharaoh’s Helicopter” hieroglyph (scientifically known as the Abydos-Hieroglyph), which shows what admittedly looks very much like a modern helicopter, but is actually an ancient hieroglyphic typo caused by re-carving or over-carving of hieroglyphic symbols that have the cumulative effect of providing a distorted view of the intended message, as has been confirmed by several prominent Egyptologists.

The Abydos-Hieroglyph demonstrates the main culprit of this ancient alien problem – amateur interpretation of complex archaeological subjects.  Something one might call cultural-chauvinism presents itself when those who are less familiar with the historical and cultural significance of various stylizations that are found in such artefacts take it upon themselves to interpret the meaning of such items.  The untrained eye will automatically draw parallels between observed characteristics and modern culture, when such comparisons are highly questionable and unfounded in the context of the ancient culture in question.

Basically, people tend to interpret things using the iconography of their own modern paradigm, rather than seeing the artefact in line with the views and customs of the artefacts makers. Often the amateur will ignore elements of original cultural significance in order to classify an object or image according to their own cultural ideology.  As is the case with the Saqqara bird, wherein the model’s carved eyes and bird-like beak are often completely overlooked in favour of the ancient aircraft theory.

This may be why so many people are jumping on board the ancient alien bandwagon.  The counter-intuitive nature of much ancient culture, especially when compared to modern culture is confusing and misleading, and perhaps this should be pointed out as a flaw in modern science reporting.  If scientists were more interested in popularizing their results, maybe these types of misunderstandings would disappear.  Unfortunately for the masses, much of science, and in particular archaeology, doesn’t lend itself well to public understanding, what with the need for much higher education and all, and the need to actually look into these issues rather than blindly following the theorising of unqualified nut bags (myself excluded!)

To be fair though, there is something to be admired in viewing things differently than the establishment, in fact this is how progress is made, but to ignore accepted wisdom is to blindly accept credulity.

Voice your opinion on ancient human flight in the comment section below.

Some time ago I read a book titled Evil: A Primer: A History of a Bad Idea, from Beelzebub to Bin Laden, and while I’m not a particularly philosophical man, I found the underlying point to be intriguing.[1]  The author, William Hart, explores the nature of evil as an idea, and in light of the horrible events of this past week (the Boston Marathon Bombing, poison being mailed to government officials and the West Texas fertilizer plant explosion) it seems a relevant topic for discussion.

The book in question, described as a primer, is understandably thin, though it didn’t have to be.  Hart goes through the motions of identifying the archetypal characters of evil, from the ultimate evil entity Satan or the Devil to the more esoteric streak of evil that hides within all of us.  He provides the reader with a comprehensive listing of evil in all its various forms.

His overarching point was that evil, as an idea, is ultimately subjective.  That evil is untenable and is the hiding place of bigotry, oppression and fear.  I think Hart to be right, but to my mind, he didn’t take his conclusions far enough.

I will posit today, that evil does not exist.  This will be an unpopular notion, but with some thought, it may just prove to be correct.

First, what is evil?  As an adjective it means profoundly immoral and malevolent, and this is frustratingly vague.  In religious context, evil is often perceived as a supernatural force that sits in contrast to the divine.  In Eastern spirituality, evil is the antagonistic counter-part of good, balancing the Yin and Yang.  But without the linguistic gymnastics needed to fully explore what evil is in philosophical terms, its simpler to say that evil is an idea, a judgement of the actions and attitudes of others.  And in that simple definition may lay the key to understanding that evil does not exist.

Actions, whether evil or not, are the product of life experience and mental conditioning, they are the outcome of choices.  These are the countless choices with which every person on earth is faced on a constant basis, each one holding the potential to be judged good or evil.  But what if our choices aren’t really our own?

In another small but powerful book, Sam Harris, noted atheist, neuroscientist and celebrated author, explores the concept of free will.  The book titled, aptly enough, Free Will[2], presents a somewhat unorthodox view of the issue of free will.  Instead of trotting out the usual destiny or fate tripe, Harris offers a unique perspective on the notion that our choices are not really our own.

Harris posits that free will is an illusion, but not the product of perceptual limitations; he says simply, that any given person’s choices are dictated by their neurochemistry, which is in turn moulded by their genetics, their life experiences and their environment.  They make choices based on the perfect storm of neurochemistry found in their brains at the moment the choice is presented.   Even deliberate choices, ones we carefully measure are subject to the make-up of our brains.  This goes beyond mere influence, as the neurochemistry of our brains is the actual stuff of our thoughts.

Harris argues that free will is negated by the fact that any persons with the same neuro-chemical make up, drawing on the same life experience and mental conditioning would make the same choice as any other.  That is to say that a person who chooses to, say, plant and detonate a bomb, has been led to that decision by an inescapable litany of causal events that ultimately led to the mental conditions necessary for making that decision.  And that any other person who had undergone the same conditioning would inexorably make the same choice.  This inevitability of neurology seems to disprove the idea that we, as sentient beings, are in control of the progression of our lives.

If our choices are the cumulative effect of our experiences coupled with the specific neurobiology of our brains at the time of choosing, then what control do we really have over our will, our free will?

To make it perfectly clear, I am not saying that we are not responsible for the decisions we make, but the idea that our choices are dictated biologically rather than through the careful (or not-so-careful) deliberation of facts and outcomes does cast a different light on the notion of evil.

No one person views themselves as evil, their actions and motives, as known only to them, are the product of that same neural conditioning.  As observed from the perspective of another person, their choices and hence their actions can be judged to be good or evil, but isn’t that judgement voided by the notion that any other person, given the same neural conditioning, would make the same choice?

As Newton said, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, and our choices do have consequences.  Those consequences have an impact on our neural conditioning and therefore they have an impact on our decision making process in the future.  But at the moment of the choice, we may not be as free to guide our own lives as we thought.

Evil is a perspective, the person who chooses to do an evil act is drawing on their own life experiences and their choice is the inevitable culmination of countless states of matter over time, that ultimately become the person in question, making the choice in question.  Basically, if you were to walk a lifetime in their shoes, you would be making the same choices, and therein lays the problem.  If the choice to set and detonate a bomb is one we are all capable of, given the right circumstances, we can hardly call it an act of evil.  As I said, evil is a matter of perspective and from the perspective of the offender, the act or the choice is justified, if not selfish, and skewed by cultural or personal idiosyncrasies, but it is not evil per se.

In the end, I’m not sure I made any sense here, this is a subject my mind has wrestled with for years and I anticipate that the battle will rage on for many more.  Again, I do not condone or support the actions of the people responsible for such tragedies, and I believe that the consequences of such action should be swift and severe, but I’m not entirely sure that they (the people or the actions) can be labelled evil.

I invite anyone and everyone to voice their opinion on the above in the comment section below.

Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Yowi, Skunk Ape, Wood Ape…these are just some of the names of North America’s most famed and mysterious cryptid.  Millions of people hold a belief in Bigfoot and there are countless amateur researchers looking for a way to prove the creature exists.  From nightly excursions into the wild, hoping for a fleeting glimpse of Sasquatch (or Squatch as he is now commonly known), to the scrutinizing of video footage and photographs, to analysing potential sources of Bigfoot DNA, much is being done to legitimize the pursuit of evidence for Sasquatch.

In amongst all the speculation that surrounds the legend of Bigfoot, there are many hypotheses in circulation that attempt to explain what Bigfoot or Sasquatch might actually be.  This doesn’t speak to the potential of its existence, but simply expounds on the origin of the legend.  What follows is a brief examination of the most popular theories, presented in two categories: Biological and Supernatural.

Biological:

Gigantopithecus – Perhaps the most popular hypothesis for the origin of Bigfoot, if not the most plausible, is that the creature is a surviving example of the Palaeolithic great ape known as Gigantopithecus. This giant ape existed between 9 million to 100,000 years ago, fossils of which have been found in China, India and Vietnam.  Some researchers believe that Gigantopithecus’ territory covered much of Asia and even Western Europe, but all agree that it was the largest ape ever to have lived.  This big fella topped out at 9-10 feet tall and weighed up to 1200lbs.

Many Squatchers believe that Gigantopithecus survived extinction and evolved into what we now know as Bigfoot.

Lemurian Origins – A relatively new hypothesis, one made famous by the alleged Bigfoot DNA genome project conducted by Dr. Melba S. Ketchum published in 2013.  Ketchum has claimed that Bigfoot’s mitochondrial DNA is that of an unknown species of lemur.  Some researchers have adopted this idea and believe that Sasquatch is in fact the product of hominin / lemur cross breeding from approximately 15,000 years ago.  This hypothesis is reported to be highly specious and is not widely accepted.

Neanderthal – Much like the Gigantopithecus hypothesis, the Neanderthal hypothesis posits simply, that Bigfoot is a surviving population of Neanderthals who have evolved to posses the characteristics of the modern Bigfoot legend.

Feral Human – The feral human hypothesis suggests that the Bigfoot legend may in fact be the misidentified collection of human individuals that have retreated from human civilization and literally become wild men.  This doesn’t say that we’re seeing a cohesive population of wild men, but rather that sightings show disparate individuals which presents an illusory pattern that is in turn interpreted as a population.

Shaman Hypothesis – This is the suggestion that sightings of Bigfoot are the result of first nations’ shamans in the wild.  Some Native American people still participate in the practice of sending out young shaman candidates to live in the wild, subsisting on the land, wearing skins and growing long hair as a ritual right of passage.  While there are several tribes or communities in both the U.S. and Canada that do participate in these types of rituals, the idea that men somehow become giant hairy ape like creatures through this process is questioned loudly.

Supernatural:

Alien – At one time the Bigfoot Alien Hypothesis was the most popular explanation for the existence of the creature.  Many Bigfoot sightings coincide with or are accompanied by UFO sightings and as a result many people are sure that the creature is in fact an extra-terrestrial.  This theory is split down the middle with one camp believing that Bigfoot is an intermittent visitor; that it doesn’t actually live in the wilds of North America and is just visiting.  The other camp believes that Bigfoot, while alien, is perhaps stranded and is breeding and growing a population base in the forest.

Inter-dimensional Being – As the heading suggests, this is the idea that Sasquatch is actually the manifestation of an inter-dimensional being, popping in and out of our realm, leaving little tid-bits of evidence here and there.  This hypothesis would account for the fleeting nature of Bigfoot sightings and would quell the sceptics claim that there isn’t enough wild territory in North America to support a breeding population of real beings.

Spirit – In this case Bigfoot isn’t considered to be a ghost, but rather a spirit, akin to Native American stories of gods, demons and other spirit type entities.  In this same vein, some people believe Sasquatch to be an angel or similar angelic presence, citing the sometimes reported psychic abilities of the creature as evidence that it is more ethereal than physical.

 

This, while not an exhaustive list, includes the most prevalent hypotheses for the identity of Sasquatch.  No doubt there are other theories, some more plausible than others, but the wonderful thing about studying cryptozoology is that there’s always someone to disagree with.

Know of another Bigfoot hypothesis?  Want to discredit one of the hypothesis listed…say so in the comment section below.

Billions and billions, that’s what Carl Sagan was quoted as saying when he was asked how many stars there might be in the universe.  He didn’t actually say billions and billions, but Johnny Carson latched onto that sound byte and it became one of his most iconic comedic expressions.

A more accurate estimate puts the number at somewhere near 10¹² stars in our galaxy and perhaps 10¹² galaxies in the universe, or 9×10²¹ stars in the known universe, which is approximately 9 sextillion (that’s 9 x 10 with 21 zeros after it).  Suffice it to say that there are many more than billions and billions, but one can hardly blame anyone for thinking in those terms.

Those numbers are all but inconceivable; the human mind can scarcely comprehend what a billion of anything is, let alone a sextillion.  It becomes somewhat easier to understand when we pull back to the Milky Way Galaxy (our own galaxy for the less informed), where cosmologists estimate the manageable number of approximately 400 billion stars, but things get a tad more complicated when we start counting planets.  Not every star has a planetary system in orbit around it, and some (or most) stars have multiple planets, much like our own solar system.  So there is no practical way to measure the abundance of planets in our galaxy, other than to make educated guesses.  Some scientists estimate the number to be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 400-500 billion planets, and as technological capabilities expand the estimate comes closer to at least one planet per star.

Now ponder if you will the likelihood that life has found a way to pop into existence on any of those planets (other than Earth).  It’s a mind-boggling notion for sure.

As I’ve written before, the Drake Equation – postulated by the inimitable Frank Drake in preparation for a symposium on detecting extraterrestrial life at the Greenbank Observatory in West Virginia in 1961 – is the preeminent tool in use for estimating the likely number of intelligent civilizations in our galaxy.

The equation (N= R^* x f_p x n_e x f_e x f_i x f_c x L) uses plugged-in variables such as the rate at which stars form, the rate at which planets form and the likelihood that life will develop on said planets, to formulate an estimate for how many intelligent civilizations will or have developed.  Criticism of the Drake Equation points out that the values plugged into it are at best educated guesses and that the adjustment of individual values has a drastic impact on the outcome of the equation.

The original value for N, as derived from the original variables, was less than 1, meaning life is most likely quite rare.  But over the years our best guesses for the variables in question have improved and depending on how you view the progress of each area of study the value for N can be greater than 1…much greater.  Some have suggested that the magic number is as high as 10,000, while others say it’s merely 10.

This disagreement provides for some heated debate, and is the basis for what follows.

Over the years, since June 1947 and before, people have been reporting sightings of UFO’s and while the extraterrestrial hypothesis isn’t the only proposed explanation for these sightings, many people speculate that ET is in fact visiting our little planet from the great beyond.  Questioned in all this speculation is the reason for their visit(s), and the answer may just depend on the values one might plug into the Drake Equation.

The leading and most common sense explanations for the presence of extraterrestrials on Earth are: the search for resources, colonisation, investigation and socialization.  These explanations range from viewing Earth as a super-market for passing aliens, to an alien anthropological expedition site, and one might be persuaded to see this question along the following categories:

Category 1 – Malevolent:

While it’s easy to see alien contact as something Orwellian, to be feared and set on fire, the reasons for their coming may be entirely selfish and inconsiderate (from our perspective at least).  If their mission is to pillage and burn our planet in the search for resources, or to sweep us aside and colonise our spinning blue ball, this can be viewed as malevolent in nature, but a more pragmatic view might suggest that it’s merely indifference, to our plight and even to our existence.  Whatever the underlying basis for their visit, those reasons that we might include in the malevolent category are certainly not in our best interests.  They ultimately result in our collective demise and/or enslavement.

Category 2 – Benevolent:

Much more agreeable to our population, these possibilities offer us opportunities for technological, social and scientific advancement.  While the notion of meeting an alien may leave one feeling somewhat xenophobic, it can hardly be said that a helping hand from above is bad thing, but why would they want to assist us?  Whether for reasons of scientific curiosity or pure exploration, or to welcome humanity into a galactic collective of cooperating civilizations (my favourite), we could be sure that our future is in good hands.

It’s anybody’s guess which of these two categories is more likely, but it may be possible to reason our way to a conclusion or two, and it seems to relate to the number of civilizations that exist in our galaxy (or universe as the case may be).

If our estimates are low, meaning that life, intelligent life, is more abundant than we think, then wouldn’t it stand to reason that any alien force that makes it to Earth has encountered and dealt with a number of other civilizations before stumbling across our doorstep?  If this is the case, isn’t it more likely that such a force has had to learn to coexist with those other civilizations?  Thus making the likelihood that there exists a compendium of alien life that wishes to welcome us into their folds a real possibility.  Does this line of reasoning suggest that with more life in the universe comes more chance that said life is benevolent?

In contrast, if our estimates are high, meaning that life is relatively rare in the galaxy, does this mean that such alien life would bear an inherent irreverence or indifference for other life, a selfishness that values material resources over socialisation?  Does this, in turn, suggest that with less life in the universe comes more chance that such life is malevolent?

If looking at our own history and progress is any indication, with more life comes a mix of both benevolence and malevolence.  More so a selfish and ingrained indifference to the well being of other life forms, including our own, interspersed with compassion and genuine empathy for our fellow creatures.  As a species we are indifferent, even malicious, but individually we show a great capacity for munificence.  And it is entirely possible, even likely, that any alien life that may visit Earth will be as conflicted as we are, if not a tad more enlightened.

What do you think about the likelihood that extraterrestrial life is either malevolent or benevolent?  Is there middle ground or should we expect the prophecies of Hollywood to come true?  Voice your opinion in the comment section below

Some time ago, I read a book titled The Watchman’s Rattle, Thinking Our Way Out of Extinction, written by Rebecca D. Costa.  The book examines the effect of ever increasing complexity in our society and the preponderance of over-specialization and silo-thinking we now face.  At the time, I wasn’t overly fond of the book, I thought Costa’s conclusions were based on authority arguments rather than facts, but over time I’ve come to appreciate the insight she shared and am seeing signs of the extinction she spoke of already taking place.

Early on Costa discusses the demise of both the Mayan Empire and the Khmer Empire of ancient Cambodia (the builders of Angkor Wat).  Both societies, Costa argues, were dependent on the flow and availability of water, and in their prime both societies were the pinnacle of technological advancement in that regard, building hugely complex irrigation systems and aqueducts.[1]  So successful were they that both empires grew to populations numbering in the hundreds of thousands, bringing demand for access to water and for the removal of waste, and for the protection of homes and villages from flood waters to an all time high.

Costa argues that an imbalance between beliefs and knowledge began to arise.  With the increase in complexity came a decrease in understanding among the masses.  She claims that spiritual or superstitious beliefs began to overtake technical knowledge and even the pursuit for that knowledge, and ultimately the people began looking for supernatural means to solve their technological problems.  She claims that this dichotomy was the impetus for ritual animal and human sacrifice, seeking action from gods for protection from floods and for blessings in the growing season.  Ultimately, according to Costa, this resulted in the eventual collapse of the entire society.

Costa talks about the availability of facts as a measure for how complex a society has become, and points out that where facts are unavailable, we tend to make up our own facts or explanations.  The more difficult it becomes to differentiate between facts and pseudo-facts; the more prone we are to accept the more readily available answer.  Accessibility becomes the deciding factor between belief and knowledge, and it is the separation between belief and knowledge that threatens our own society today.

Recently there has been a virtual battle raging between facts and pseudo-facts in our culture.

For decades the medical community has been vigorously searching for a cure for what is arguably the single greatest killer of our modern society, cancer.  And while progress has been made with the treatment of symptoms and with the techniques used to remove cancerous cells from the body, the medical community at large tells us that a cure is still far away.  Millions, even billions of dollars have been spent on medical research and millions if not billions more will be spent in the future.

If you take a look on the internet, you’ll probably find a good number of so-called cancer cures, from faith healing to shark cartilage, all of which are most certainly quackery.  You’ll also probably come across at least one website claiming that the powers-that-be have already come up with a cure and are keeping it under wraps for financial or political gain.

This, it seems to me, highlights the divide between facts and pseudo-facts, between belief and knowledge.  There are two teams in this battle, on one side the medical community and on the other the masses looking for the easiest answer.  Again, as Costa suggests, the accessibility of facts is the determining factor in the victory of this battle.  One side here, and I’ll let you guess which one, is based on knowledge, or facts, and the other is based on belief, or pseudo-facts.

So why do so many people choose to put their faith in pseudo-facts?

In all areas of modern life we are faced with this dilemma, our lives require that we seek out knowledge.  We need facts in order to live our daily lives, and while every fact requires a certain level of faith or belief, the sources of those facts are not all created equal.  In the case of the cancer cure, is it simple mistrust of the medical community that drives the quackery?  I don’t think so.  While mistrust may play a role, I think it’s the availability of the facts at hand that impedes our knowledge.  A deep and successful understanding of the complex facts offered by the medical community requires a good deal of effort.  And let’s face it, it’s much easier to go online and latch onto the first plausible, or seemingly plausible answer instead.

The same is true for so many different subjects and at the heart of this argument may seem to be a theological conflict, disparaging religion in favour of science, and I offer no denial that those two institutions are in conflict with one another, but I truly feel the issue is really one of knowledge vs. belief.  With greater knowledge, belief holds less sway over our lives.

Unfortunately, as attractive as pseudo-facts may be in the moment, they offer no real solutions and ultimately put us at the top of a slippery slope, one that starts with unsupported answers and ends with full blown spiritual superstition and maybe animal sacrifice.  There is a difference between belief and knowledge, and it’s dismaying to see so many people putting value on the former in spite of the latter.

And I think that difference is nicely caricatured by the following quote found on RationalWiki.org:

“Because cancer and other forms of deformities are the results of the curse of sin, I believe that scientists are probably wasting their time in trying find cures. In the end, their efforts will either amount to nothing or they will invoke God’s wrath.”  —Rapture Ready, “Does God approve of cloning and genetic research?”

This is not a question of whether God exists, it’s a question of where do we put our faith?  In the supernatural, hoping for the right answer delivered by means of magic, or in the empirical, knowing the answer is right because it’s been tested and verified?

The internet is a powerful tool, you have a world of information at your fingertips, just remember that the facts you come by the easiest, may not be the right facts.

Hot off the presses, Dr. Greer announces the release of his preliminary report on the analysis of the Atacama Humanoid!

Making headlines in the paranormal and scientific community alike over the last few weeks, the Disclosure Project, headed by Dr Steven M. Greer MD has been hyping up their planned release of the Sirius UFO “documentary” on April 24, 2013.  Apparently in that effort, Greer has today released a special preliminary report on the analysis of the Atacama Humanoid, said to be the focal point of the documentary.

UFO and paranormal enthusiast have been going nuts with anticipation for information on this little whatever-it-is.  As the story goes, a six-inch long humanoid figure, highly desiccated but preserved in mummy-like fashion, was found in the wilds of the Atacama desert of Chile in 2003.  Greer became aware of the figure in 2009 when he was invited to examine the remains.  Then in 2012 Ramón Navia-Osorio Villar, President of the Instituto De Investigaciones Y Estudios Exobiologicos allowed Greer and his team to take x-ray, CAT scans and biological samples from the remains for analysis.

Photos of the figure are included in the report along with comparisons to fetal skeletal structures and the like.  Looking at the photos, which have been available online for some time, one is struck by the look of the creature.  It appears almost sculpted, which brings up some doubt that it isn’t an elaborate hoax.

In the report Greer identifies Dr. Garry Nolan as the lead expert to have examined and analysed the samples.  Nolan, the Rachford and Carlota A. Harris Professor in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at Stanford University School of Medicine, is quoted in the report discussing his untested conclusion that the creature is definitely a biological entity (apparently not hoaxed) and is not the result of any known skeletal dysplasia or other deformity (including anencephaly).

The report goes on to describe, briefly, the protocols used to identify and process the DNA of apparent bone marrow samples taken from the creatures rib (of which it apparently has 10, which is not consistent with known hominids).  Some scientific terminology is used throughout the report, lending some small measure of credibility to the story, but as Nolan points out late in the report, these are preliminary findings that have yet to be confirmed through peer review, which will reportedly take place in roughly a year.

Greer is careful not to draw premature conclusions based on the data provided by Nolan and others, but he does offer some speculation about other specimens that may exist in and around Chile, and even the possibility that there are living examples of this creature in the Atacama Desert.  Greer asks several questions in the “Hypothesis and Thoughts” section at the end of the report, and he seems to suggest that this creature is not of extraterrestrial nature.

It is clear that more analysis is required, but the tantalising nature of the report holds parallels to the Ketchum-Bigfoot debacle of late 2012 early 2013.  Is this the future of scientific reporting where controversial topics are concerned?  Is hype for the story more important than scientific credibility?

Greer is a medical doctor, having received his medical license (Virginia) from the University of North Carolina.  In 1990 he founded the Center for the Study of Extraterrestrial Intelligence (CSETI) and then The Disclosure Project in 1993, eventually giving up his career as an emergency room physician in 1998 to pursue government disclosure of alien contact on Earth.  He has appeared on multiple television programs dealing with the extraterrestrial question, including Larry King Live, and is an outspoken member of the UFOlogical community.

Greer enjoys a good deal of credibility in both the paranormal and scientific community, and the Sirius documentary is said to contain life-altering information, but have his efforts now been mired by the premature release of information that should have been published traditionally, in a peer-reviewed scientific journal?

As mentioned, the preliminary report says, explicitly, that there are yet no answers regarding the identity or origin of the creature and that the results of their six-month long study are due to be published in the future, but this is all too familiar and makes one hesitant to accept that his speculations are anything more than the fantasies of a man who’s passion for the topic at hand is heightened, to say the least.

With the release of the film only days away, the world will finally see what all the fuss is about, and if this preliminary report is any indication, we might all be disappointed by a lack of concrete information.

The preliminary report can be found here: Stanford University Research: Atacama Humanoid Still A Mystery

The second law of thermodynamics demands, and it is generally accepted, that life tends toward greater and greater complexity.  That is to say that as biological entities evolve, they generally tend to develop into more complex entities.  The second law of thermodynamics says that entropy increases over time, which means that over time, all systems will evolve toward more and more disorder (or complexity).

The easiest way to think of entropy is to picture an egg.  In its lowest entropic state, a whole egg has only one possible configuration, whole.  In its highest entropic state the egg has many possible configurations, as there are many ways that a broken egg can exist.

This is a complicated way to say that life on Earth, as time goes on, will get more and more complex, and measurably so.  And this works in reverse as well.  When you look back through the continuum of biological life on Earth, you can see a logical progression from complex life to more simple forms of life, and some have suggested that the rate of change is predictable.  Much like the formula that describes the progression of electronic transistors in computers, Moore’s Law.

Moore’s Law describes the rate at which computer technology advances.  Specifically the law states that the numbers of transistors that can be installed on integrated circuits will double every two years, or 18 months.  This can be measured by looking at the progression of computing power seen in consumer computer products as the years go by.  Moore’s Law was first described by Gordon E. Moore in his 1965 paper ‘Cramming More Components Onto Integrated Circuits’[1], and one of the most interesting things about Moore’s Law is that it can be used to plot not only the future of computing, but to pin point the origins as well.  When plotted on a graph, as seen below, one can easily see the start point of the exponential growth of transistor count in the 1970’s, which corresponds with the explosion of Silicon Valley companies endeavouring to take computers into the future.

 

Well, Alexi Sharov, Staff Scientist of the National Institute of Ageing in Baltimore, and Theoretical Biologist Richard Gordon of the Gulf Specimen Marine Laboratory in Florida have applied Moore’s Law to biological life, or more specifically, directly to nucleotides (DNA and RNA) and genetic material, and they came up with some interesting conclusions.

Not only does biological evolution conform to Moore’s Law of exponential growth, but it can also be traced backward to pin point the origin of life on Earth [read: time of origin, not place or method of origin], or not on Earth as the case may be.

Their essay, available through Cornell University’s online Library[2], does much of the leg work for us, and quite surprisingly states that life’s origin predates the Earth.

Mathematically Moore’s Law applies quite well to the progression of life’s building blocks, and it seems to hold up well to physical comparison as well, but Sharov and Gordon are quick to point out that this is far from a theory and more of a thought experiment, as it’s impossible to know for sure if the complexity of life increased at a steady rate over time.

Visually outlined in the following graph, it’s easy to see, according to their hypothesis, that the progression of life, which apparently arose some 9.5 billion years ago, clearly predates the birth of our beloved planet, some 4.5 billion years ago.  Sharov and Gordon stop short of making any claims for the place or method of the origin of life and simply point to the possibility that life originated elsewhere and was transplanted on Earth at some point after it formed.

 

It’s worth noting that this idea is not a new one.  What is new is the mathematical language necessary to describe the progression as exponential.  No, this is an idea known as panspermia, which dates to the 5^th century BC and is often attributed to the Greek philosopher Anaxagoras, and has held proponents such as Lord Kelvin and Charles Darwin over the years.  Panspermia is the theory that suggests that life, the microscopic elements of life such as DNA and RNA, originated elsewhere in our galaxy or the universe, and that this life was deposited on Earth in the distant past by way of an asteroid or meteoric impact.  Contained within that asteroid or meteor were samples of single celled extremophiles that were hearty enough to survive the impact and ultimately flourished in early Earth conditions.

Like Sharov and Gordon, the panspermia theory does not speak to the method of creation or the location of our origins, but rather describes the highly plausible and possible scenario that we are not children of the earth, but that we are, in fact, children of the galaxy.

The above graph, taken from Sharov and Gordon’s paper, is striking in that it so clearly highlights the disparity between the origin of life and the birth of our planet.  The application of Moore’s Law to biological evolution seems to satisfy the second law of thermodynamics, even if the progression of life isn’t exactly exponential.  And the apparently empirical confirmation of panspermia theory will likely be viewed as a valuable insight into the development of life on our planet.

Of the silly Fortean beliefs held by people of the late 19^th and early 20^th century, some are more understandable than others.  When an idea infects the populous it can spread as quickly as a scientifically engineered super-virus, and when those ideas are backed by the likes of intellectual giants such as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, it’s easy to forgive the people for buying into it.

I characterize Doyle as an intellectual giant, and he rightly was, but to be honest, he got behind some fairly weird ideas during his heyday.  Doyle was a huge proponent of the séance, he held an immense fascination with tipping tables and the medium’s trumpet and ectoplasm, but his attentions weren’t only focused on the ghostly and the spiritual.  In fact, his interest and passion for cryptozoological topics resulted in his being taken in by a few well executed hoaxes over the years.

One such example was the Cottingley Fairies.  As the story goes, in mid-1917, two young girls, cousins Elise Wright and Frances Griffiths of West Yorkshire, England, visited Cottingley beck, a small stream running near their small village.  There the girls apparently witnessed groups of fairies frolicking about near the rivers edge.  Elise being 16 at the time and Frances being only 10 years old, claimed to not only interact with the fairies but, incredibly, they captured five photographs of the creatures over a period of time.

Showing several small (approximately six inch tall), apparently female fairy like creatures, the photos became public in mid-1918 through the Theosophical Society of Bradford England, via one of the Society’s leading members, Mr. Edward Gardner.  Gardner subjected the photos to analysis, such as it was at the time, and with the help of photography expert Harold Snelling, determined that the photos were not faked.  At least as far as saying that the photos showed what had been presented to the camera at the time of exposure and were not manipulated photographically.

Elise’s Father, a professional photographer himself, with a darkroom set up in his home and whose camera the girls had borrowed to take the photos, had dismissed the photos as a hoax, believing the fairies to be cardboard cut-outs, but Frances’ Mother was taken by the photos and was the one to bring them forward to Gardner.

Public opinion was split over the authenticity of the photos and the girls enjoyed some short-lived celebrity over the incident.  They eventually became disenchanted with the idea of fairies and the attention of investigators and psychics interested in exploiting the situation soon became a burden to the girls and their families.

Conan Doyle became aware of the photos through the editor of the Spiritualist publication Light.  And having been commissioned to write an article on fairies for the 1920 Christmas issue of The Strand Magazine, Doyle used the photos as the basis for his article, interpreting them as clear and visible evidence of psychic phenomenon.

Following Conan Doyle’s involvement, further analysis took place via the photography companies Kodak and Ilford, and while the Ilford technicians found evidence that the photos had been faked, the Kodak analysis agreed with Snelling’s initial assessment.

Like most incidents of paranormal phenomenon, the fervour and public interest in the photos eventually died down and Elise and Frances went on with their lives.  Until, that is, the BBC covered the story in 1971 in their Nationwide programme in which Elise maintained her original story, that she believed the fairies were figments of her imagination and that she had somehow managed to photograph her own thoughts.

Over the years Elise and Frances had been interviewed for other programmes and news stories and they always maintained their story.  James Randi, in cooperation with a team from the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, concluded through computer analysis that strings could be seen suspending the fairies in mid air.  And in 1983 the cousins admitted in an article published in the magazine The Unexplained that they had in fact hoaxed the photos.

Elise admitted that the fairies were cardboard cut outs from a children’s book (Princess Mary’s Gift Book – 1914), and that they had been suspended in front of the camera using hat pins.  While Elise claimed that all five photos were faked, Frances maintained, quite adamantly, that the fifth photo was genuine and that it did in fact depict real fairies that they saw at Cottingley beck.

The women, now deceased, were responsible for pulling the wool over the eyes of many a learned and experienced investigator, not the least of which was Conan Doyle, and their accounts of the events surrounding the photos never waivered, up until their admission of the hoax.  It’s a near certainty that some people still believe the fairies are real, in spite of the confession, and bearing that in mind, can one forgive the great genius of Conan Doyle for being duped by a couple of adolescent girls with vivid imaginations and the creative expertise to affect some of the most convincing fairy photos in history?

This wasn’t the first time Conan Doyle was taken in by a story of incredible proportions and it certainly wasn’t the last, but in my mind, his passion for the subject and the reach of his own imagination outweigh his ultimate gullibility.

What do you think about the Cottingley Fairies and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s quick acceptance that Fairies actually do exist?  Voice your opinion in the comment section below.

Erected in Elbert County, Georgia March 22, 1980, this enigmatic granite monument (sometimes referred to as the American Stonehenge) was instantly the centre of numerous conspiracy theories. Who built it? Why? And what do the guides on the stones actually mean? The Canadian Emmy-award winning series, Guidestones, explores the conspiracy surrounding the monument.

There are ten lofty guides or commandments inscribed on the stones in eight different languages. The first reads “Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature”. This is interpreted as evidence of an impending apocalypse orchestrated by such secret societies as the Freemasons, the Illuminati, the Bilderburg Group, the Rosicrucians, or some other elitist organization. As such the Georgia Guidestones are frequently considered to be a sinister warning and should be regarded with suspicion and fear.

After reading Randall Sullivan’s article in Wired Magazine in 2009, Guidestones creator and director, Jay Ferguson, was determined to make the stone monument the centre of his next project. With a small dedicated team, what he created became an international sensation, exploring the frontier of interactive digital media in a never before seen format.

The series follows an international journalism student, Sandy Rai, who quickly becomes caught in a global conspiracy while investigating an unsolved murder. The story adheres to the popular conspiracy theory and attributes the Georgia Guidestones to the Rosicrucians, an order similar to the Freemasons. The inscription “R.C. Christian” on the nearby instruction tablet indicates that this mysterious figure is the author of the Guidestones, but also admits, in subsequent parentheses, that this name is a pseudonym. As such many have assumed that it does not refer to a person at all but to the Order of Rosicrucian, a secret society, which first appeared in Protestant Germany in the early 17^th century.

In modern times, several organizations, both religious and non-religious, identify themselves as Rosicrucian. Sandy’s search leads to her to the Ancient Mystical Order of Rosae Crucis (AMORC), a self-purported non-sectarian organization founded in 1915, which is dedicated to the teaching of philosophical and mystical principles in order to achieve a higher knowledge.  They claim their roots reach back to Ancient Egypt and, even though they would not admit to judge others, are the only true Rosicrucian Order. Other organizations speak of a true and invisible Rosicrucian Order to which all orders have a spiritual connection. This is the stuff of which great conspiracies and, as Guidestones proves, great stories are made.

Traveling around the world, Sandy uncovers a nefarious corporation, which has been developing next gen technology with the ability to trigger controlled natural disasters and cull the global population.  In the wake of this destruction and chaos they will form a New World Order.  Throughout Sandy’s investigation, she is met with challenges and mysteries she never expected including her own shocking connection to the conspiracy.

Learn more about the Georia Guidestones at Guidestones.org and take part in their webseries exploring the mystery of America’s Stonehenge.

Hiding in relative obscurity, the Dover Demon has actually had it’s fair share of media coverage since it’s initial 1977 appearance in the sleepy little town of Dover, Massachusetts.  Considering there were only three sightings of the creature over a 25-hour period, it’s actually quite amazing that it’s held the public’s attention for so long.  Especially so when you realise that the main witnesses were teenagers.

As the story goes, three 17 year olds were driving through Dover at 10:30pm on April 21, 1977 when they saw something out-of-this-world!  Or as columnist for the MetroWest Daily News, Mr. Know-It-All reports, the boys were travelling north on Farm Street in their Volkswagen, when the vehicle’s headlights illuminated a strange creature standing near a low wall of loose stones next to the roadway.

Bill Bartlett, the driver, was travelling with his friends Mike Mazzocca and Andy Brodie, but Bartlett was the only one of the three to see the creature.  Bartlett described it as having a large watermelon-

shaped head resting atop of a thin neck.  Except for its oversized head, the creature was thin, with long spindly arms and legs, and large hands and feet. The skin seemed hairless and peach-coloured and appeared to have a rough texture, “like wet sandpaper.”  It stood 3-½ to 4 feet tall, and its body was shaped like a baby’s, but with long arms and legs.

Later that evening, 15 year old John Baxter encountered the creature on his walk home from his girlfriend’s home, which was near the first sighting.  Startled by the creature but not scared off, Baxter briefly chased the Dover Demon into the woods adjacent to the roadway and then having thought better of the idea of being alone in the woods with a creature he returned to the road and continued his walk home at a hurried pace.

Baxter’s description was very similar to Bartlett’s, differing only by saying that the creature’s head was “figure eight” shaped.  Like Bartlett, Baxter claimed that the creature had no mouth, nose or ears, but that its eyes were eerily luminescent.

The third and final sighting took place only moments later; Will Taintor, 18 and close friend of Baxter, was driving with Abby Brabham, 15, along Springdale Avenue when they spotted the creature along the side of the roadway.  Taintor claimed to have only gotten a brief glimpse of the creature while Brabham was able to see much more detail.

Brabham described the creature as thin and monkey-like with a large, oblong head, no nose, ears or mouth. She said the creature was hairless and its skin was tan or beige in color. The facial area around the eyes was lighter and the eyes glowed green.

As the story broke in 1977, famous cryptozoologist Loren Coleman, who at the time lived in the neighbouring town of Needham, was the first investigator to look into the sightings.  He conducted interviews with the teens and is credited with coining the name Dover Demon (though some sources credit the local newspaper for coming up with the name).  Bartlett, Baxter, Brabham and Taintor all drew sketches of the creature which showed significant continuity between them, and Bartlett included with his sketch the phrase: “I, Bill Bartlett, swear on a stack of Bibles that I saw this creature.”  Though it’s doubtful he actually placed his hand on a bible, let alone a stack of bibles, one does appreciate his conviction.

Coleman brought in famous UFOlogists Joseph Nyman, Ed Fogg and Walter Webb (the then Assistant Director of the Hayden Planetarium at Boston’s Science Museum) to assist with the investigation, but the case remains officially unsolved.

The Dover Demon has made appearances in several books over the years, not the least of which is Coleman’s Mysterious America: The Revised Edition[1], and is considered to be a classic cryptid, among such others as Sasquatch and the New Jersey Devil.  The creature was never sighted again, but the believers still believe.

Skeptics have tried to explain away the sightings as that of a possibly deformed and disfigured infant moose, though one can hardly imagine a deformity that would make a moose look like the described creature.  The initial investigators noted that none of the teens were intoxicated or under the influence of drugs at the time of the sightings, and no evidence could be found to support the idea that they were collectively perpetrating a hoax.

Although the evidence in this case is purely anecdotal, cryptid experts such as Coleman view the case as genuine, but they offer no explanation for what the creature was.  It remains a mystery.  Was the Dover Demon an alien, a ghostly apparition or a seriously deformed baby moose?  In the case of the latter, one is reminded of the recent case of the decomposed Sasquatch foot found somewhere in the Pacific Northwest of the United States.  Pictures floated about the internet claiming that proof of Bigfoot was finally in hand, though none of those who believed had bothered to compare the so-called Sasquatch foot to that of a decomposed bear paw, which, in fact, it turned out to be.

Without offering undue support to the auto-debunkers out there, how many of these cryptid hunters have studied images of deformed infant moose in comparison to the Dover Demon sketches?  Probably fewer than you might imagine.

What are your thoughts on the Dover Demon?  Was it an alien, or an example of vivid imagination?  Voice your opinion in the comment section below.