By Will Hart
Description: The scientific establishment tends to reject, suppress or ignore evidence that conflicts with accepted theories, while denigrating or persecuting the messenger.
THE BRAIN POLICE” AND “THE BIG LIE
Any time you allege a conspiracy is afoot, especially in the field of science, you are treading on thin ice. We tend to be very sceptical about conspiracies–unless the Mafia or some Muslim radicals are behind the alleged plot. But the evidence is overwhelming and the irony is that much of it is in plain view.
The good news is that the players are obvious. Their game plan and even their play-by-play tactics are transparent, once you learn to spot them. However, it is not so easy to penetrate through the smokescreen of propaganda and disinformation to get to their underlying motives and goals. It would be convenient if we could point to a plumber’s unit and a boldface liar like Richard Nixon, but this is a more subtle operation.
The bad news: the conspiracy is global and there are many vested interest groups. A cursory investigation yields the usual suspects: scientists with a theoretical axe to grind, careers to further and the status quo to maintain. Their modus operandi is “The Big Lie”–and the bigger and more widely publicised, the better. They rely on invoking their academic credentials to support their arguments, and the presumption is that no one has the right to question their authoritarian pronouncements that:
1. there is no mystery about who built the Great Pyramid or what the methods of construction were, and the Sphinx shows no signs of water damage;
2. there were no humans in the Americas before 20,000 BC;
3. the first civilisation dates back no further than 6000 BC;
4. there are no documented anomalous, unexplained or enigmatic data to take into account;
5. there are no lost or unaccounted-for civilisations.
Let the evidence to the contrary be damned!
Personal Attacks: Dispute over Age of the Sphinx and Great Pyramid
In 1993, NBC in the USA aired The Mysteries of the Sphinx, which presented geological evidence showing that the Sphinx was at least twice as old (9,000 years) as Egyptologists claimed. It has become well known as the “water erosion controversy”. An examination of the politicking that Egyptologists deployed to combat this undermining of their turf is instructive.
Self-taught Egyptologist John Anthony West brought the water erosion issue to the attention of geologist Dr Robert Schoch. They went to Egypt and launched an intensive on-site investigation. After thoroughly studying the Sphinx first hand, the geologist came to share West’s preliminary conclusion and they announced their findings.
Dr Zahi Hawass, the Giza Monuments chief, wasted no time in firing a barrage of public criticism at the pair. Renowned Egyptologist Dr Mark Lehner, who is regarded as the world’s foremost expert on the Sphinx, joined his attack. He charged West and Schoch with being “ignorant and insensitive“. That was a curious accusation which took the matter off the professional level and put the whole affair on a personal plane. It did not address the facts or issues at all and it was highly unscientific.
But we must note the standard tactic of discrediting anyone who dares to call the accepted theories into question. Shifting the focus away from the issues and “personalising” the debate is a highly effective strategy–one which is often used by politicians who feel insecure about their positions. Hawass and Lehner invoked their untouchable status and presumed authority. (One would think that a geologist’s assessment would hold more weight on this particular point.)
A short time later, Schoch, Hawass and Lehner were invited to debate the issue at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. West was not allowed to participate because he lacked the required credentials.
This points to a questionable assumption that is part of the establishment’s arsenal: only degreed scientists can practise science. Two filters keep the uncredentialled, independent researcher out of the loop: (1) credentials, and (2) peer review. You do not get to number two unless you have number one.
Science is a method that anyone can learn and apply. It does not require a degree to observe and record facts and think critically about them, especially in the non-technical social sciences. In a free and open society, science has to be a democratic process.
Be that as it may, West was barred. The elements of the debate have been batted back and forth since then without resolution. It is similar to the controversy over who built the Giza pyramids and how.
This brings up the issue of The Big Lie and how it has been promoted for generations in front of God and everyone. The controversy over how the Great Pyramid was constructed is one example. It could be easily settled if Egyptologists wanted to resolve the dispute. A simple test could be designed and arranged by impartial engineers that would either prove or disprove their longstanding disputed theory–that it was built using the primitive tools and methods of the day, circa 2500 BC.
Why hasn’t this been done? The answer is so obvious, it seems impossible: they know that the theory is bogus. Could a trained, highly educated scientist really believe that 2.3 million tons of stone, some blocks weighing 70 tons, could have been transported and lifted by primitive methods? That seems improbable, though they have no compunction against lying to the public, writing textbooks and defending this theory against alternative theories. However, we must note that they will not subject themselves to the bottom-line test.
We think it is incumbent upon any scientist to bear the burden of proof of his/her thesis; however, the social scientists who make these claims have never stood up to that kind of scrutiny. That is why we must suspect a conspiracy. No other scientific discipline would get away with bending the rules of science. All that Egyptologists have ever done is bat down alternative theories using underhanded tactics. It is time to insist that they prove their own proposals.
Why would scientists try to hide the truth and avoid any test of their hypothesis? Their motivations are equally transparent. If it can be proved that the Egyptians did not build the Great Pyramid in 2500 BC using primitive methods, or if the Sphinx can be dated to 9000 BC, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. Orthodox views of cultural evolution are based upon a chronology of civilisation having started in Sumeria no earlier than 4000 BC. The theory does not permit an advanced civilisation to have existed prior to that time. End of discussion. Archaeology and history lose their meaning without a fixed timeline as a point of reference.
Since the theory of “cultural evolution” has been tied to Darwin’s general theory of evolution, even more is at stake. Does this explain why facts, anomalies and enigmas are denied, suppressed and/or ignored? Yes, it does. The biological sciences today are based on Darwinism.
[EDITOR’S NOTE: Meanwhile, since this article was written, French Mr. Houdin has found the most feasible theory of how the great Pyramid was built, with tunnels from the inside out, which proves also it was built in that time frame.Yet, he is not allowed to do tests in the pyramids because his very plausible theory would hurt the authority of Hawass and Lehner, and so permission to probe the pyramid with interior radar methods is not forthcoming, for already a few years! Science is stifled again by so-called authority. A crying shame! So the timeframe is very probable but Will Hart’s article still makes very much sense today! 2016]
Pressure Tactics: The Ica Stones of Peru
Now we turn to another, very different case. In 1966, Dr Javier Cabrera received a stone as a gift from a poor local farmer in his native Ica, Peru. A fish was carved on the stone, which would not have meant much to the average villager but it did mean a lot to the educated Dr Cabrera. He recognised it as a long-extinct species. This aroused his curiosity. He purchased more stones from the farmer, who said he had collected them near the river after a flood.
Dr Cabrera accumulated more and more stones, and word of their existence and potential import reached the archaeological community. Soon, the doctor had amassed thousands of “Ica stones”. The sophisticated carvings were as enigmatic as they were fascinating. Someone had carved men fighting with dinosaurs, men with telescopes and men performing operations with surgical equipment. They also contained drawings of lost continents.
Several of the stones were sent to Germany and the etchings were dated to remote antiquity. But we all know that men could not have lived at the time of dinosaurs; Homo sapiens has “only existed for about 100,000 years.”
The BBC got wind of this discovery and swooped down to produce a documentary about the Ica stones. The media exposure ignited a storm of controversy. Archaeologists criticised the Peruvian government for being lax about enforcing antiquities laws (but that was not their real concern). Pressure was applied to government officials.
The farmer who had been selling the stones to Cabrera was arrested; he claimed to have found them in a cave but refused to disclose the exact location to authorities, or so they claimed.
This case was disposed of so artfully that it would do any corrupt politician proud. The Peruvian government threatened to prosecute and imprison the farmer. He was offered and accepted a plea bargain; he then recanted his story and “admitted” to having carved the stones himself. That seems highly implausible, since he was uneducated and unskilled and there were 11,000 stones in all. Some were fairly large and intricately carved with animals and scenes that the farmer would not have had knowledge of without being a palaeontologist. He would have needed to work every day for several decades to produce that volume of stones. However, the underlying facts were neither here nor there. The Ica stones were labelled “hoax” and forgotten.
The case did not require a head-to-head confrontation or public discrediting of non-scientists by scientists; it was taken care of with invisible pressure tactics. Since it was filed under “hoax”, the enigmatic evidence never had to be dealt with, as it did in the next example.
Censorship of “Forbidden” Thinking: Evidence for Mankind’s Great Antiquity
The case of author Michael Cremo is well documented, and it also demonstrates how the scientific establishment openly uses pressure tactics on the media and government. His book Forbidden Archeology examines many previously ignored examples of artifacts that prove modern man’s antiquity far exceeds the age given in accepted chronologies.
The examples which he and his co-author present are controversial, but the book became far more controversial than the contents when it was used in a documentary.
In 1996, NBC broadcast a special called The Mysterious Origins of Man, which featured material from Cremo’s book. The reaction from the scientific community went off the Richter scale. NBC was deluged with letters from irate scientists who called the producer “a fraud” and the whole program “a hoax”.
But the scientists went further than this–a lot further. In an extremely unconscionable sequence of bizarre moves, they tried to force NBC not to rebroadcast the popular program, but that effort failed. Then they took the most radical step of all: they presented their case to the federal government and requested the Federal Communications Commission to step in and bar NBC from airing the program again.
This was not only an apparent infringement of free speech and a blatant attempt to thwart commerce, it was an unprecedented effort to censor intellectual discourse. If the public or any government agency made an attempt to handcuff the scientific establishment, the public would never hear the end of it.
The letter to the FCC written by Dr Allison Palmer, President of the Institute for Cambrian Studies, is revealing:
At the very least, NBC should be required to make substantial prime-time apologies to their viewing audience for a sufficient period of time so that the audience clearly gets the message that they were duped. In addition, NBC should perhaps be fined sufficiently so that a major fund for public science education can be established.
I think we have some good leads on who “the Brain Police” are. And I really do not think “conspiracy” is too strong a word–because for every case of this kind of attempted suppression that is exposed, 10 others are going on successfully. We have no idea how many enigmatic artifacts or dates have been labelled “error” and tucked away in storage warehouses or circular files, never to see the light of day.
[EDITOR’S NOTE: Meanwhile, since this article was written, also Michael Cremo has been dis-credited. But still Will Hart’s point of wrong appeal to academic authority makes very much sense today! 2016]
Data Rejection: Inconvenient Dating in Mexico
Then there is the high-profile case of Dr Virginia Steen-McIntyre, a geologist working for the US Geological Survey (USGS), who was dispatched to an archaeological site in Mexico to date a group of artifacts in the 1970s. This travesty also illustrates how far established scientists will go to guard orthodox tenets.
McIntyre used state-of-the-art equipment and backed up her results by using four different methods, but her results were off the chart. The lead archaeologist expected a date of 25,000 years or less, and the geologist’s finding was 250,000 years or more.
The figure of 25,000 years or less was critical to the Bering Strait “crossing” theory, and it was the motivation behind the head archaeologist’s tossing Steen-McIntyre’s results in the circular file and asking for a new series of dating tests. This sort of reaction does not occur when dates match the expected chronological model that supports accepted theories.
Steen-McIntyre was given a chance to retract her conclusions, but she refused. She found it hard thereafter to get her papers published and she lost a teaching job at an American university.
[EDITOR’S NOTE: Also in this it is our contention, often brought out in our articles, that the dating game of historical academia is wrong. Check our dating category to find the articles. So the recent timeframe is far more probable, but regardless Will Hart’s article still shows how academia is led by dogmas instead of debate!]
Government Suppression and Ethnocentrism:
Avoiding Anomalous Evidence in NZ, China and Mexico
In New Zealand, the government actually stepped in and enacted a law forbidding the public from entering a controversial archaeological zone. This story appeared in the book, Ancient Celtic New Zealand, by Mark Doutré.
[Editor: There are other cover-ups as well, as seen in the screenshot below of anothe case of suppression in N.Z.]
However, as we will find (and as I promised at the beginning of the article), this is a complicated conspiracy. Scientists trying to protect their “hallowed” theories while furthering their careers are not the only ones who want artifacts and data suppressed. This is where the situation gets sticky.
The Waipoua Forest became a controversial site in New Zealand because an archaeological dig apparently showed evidence of a non-Polynesian culture that preceded the Maori–a fact that the tribe was not happy with. They learned of the results of the excavations before the general public did and complained to the government. According to Doutré, the outcome was “an official archival document, which clearly showed an intention by New Zealand government departments to withhold archaeological information from public scrutiny for 75 years”.
The public got wind of this fiasco but the government denied the claim. However, official documents show that an embargo had been placed on the site. Doutré is a student of New Zealand history and archaeology. He is concerned because he says that artifacts proving that there was an earlier culture which preceded the Maori are missing from museums. He asks what happened to several anomalous remains:
Where are the ancient Indo-European hair samples (wavy red brown hair), originally obtained from a rock shelter near Watakere, that were on display at the Auckland War Memorial Museum for many years? Where is the giant skeleton found near Mitimati?
Unfortunately this is not the only such incident. Ethnocentrism has become a factor in the conspiracy to hide mankind’s true history. Author Graham Hancock has been attacked by various ethnic groups for reporting similar enigmatic findings.
The problem for researchers concerned with establishing humanity’s true history is that the goals of nationalists or ethnic groups who want to lay claim to having been in a particular place first, often dovetail with the goals of cultural evolutionists.
Archaeologists are quick to go along with suppressing these kinds of anomalous finds. One reason Egyptologists so jealously guard the Great Pyramid’s construction date has to do with the issue of national pride.
The case of the Takla Makan Desert mummies in western China is another example of this phenomenon. In the 1970s and 1980s, an unaccounted-for Caucasian culture was suddenly unearthed in China. The arid environment preserved the remains of a blond-haired, blue-eyed people who lived in pre-dynastic China. They wore colourful robes, boots, stockings and hats. The Chinese were not happy about this revelation and they have downplayed the enigmatic find, even though Asians were found buried alongside the Caucasian mummies.
National Geographic writer Thomas B. Allen mused in a 1996 article about his finding a potsherd bearing a fingerprint of the potter. When he inquired if he could take the fragment to a forensic anthropologist, the Chinese scientist asked whether he “would be able to tell if the potter was a white man”. Allen said he was not sure, and the official pocketed the fragment and quietly walked away. It appears that many things get in the way of scientific discovery and disclosure.
The existence of the Olmec culture in Old Mexico has always posed a problem. Where did the Negroid people depicted on the colossal heads come from? Why are there Caucasians carved on the stele in what is Mexico’s seed civilisation? What is worse, why aren’t the indigenous Mexican people found on the Olmec artifacts? Recently a Mexican archaeologist solved the problem by making a fantastic claim: that the Olmec heads–which generations of people of all ethnic groups have agreed bear a striking resemblance to Africans–were really representations of the local tribe.
STORMTROOPERS FOR DARWINISM
The public does not seem at all aware of the fact that the scientific establishment has a double standard when it comes to the free flow of information. In essence, it goes like this… Scientists are highly educated, well trained and intellectually capable of processing all types of information, and they can make the correct critical distinctions between fact and fiction, reality and fantasy. The unwashed public is simply incapable of functioning on this high mental plane.
The noble ideal of the scientist as a highly trained, impartial, apolitical observer and assembler of established facts into a useful body of knowledge seems to have been shredded under the pressures and demands of the real world. Science has produced many positive benefits for society; but we should know by now that science has a dark, negative side. Didn’t those meek fellows in the clean lab coats give us nuclear bombs and biological weapons? The age of innocence ended in World War II.
That the scientific community has an attitude of intellectual superiority is thinly veiled under a carefully orchestrated public relations guise. We always see Science and Progress walking hand in hand. Science as an institution in a democratic society has to function in the same way as the society at large; it should be open to debate, argument and counter-argument. There is no place for unquestioned authoritarianism. Is modern science meeting these standards?
In the Fall of 2001, PBS aired a seven-part series, titled Evolution. Taken at face value, that seems harmless enough. However, while the program was presented as pure, objective, investigative science journalism, it completely failed to meet even minimum standards of impartial reporting. The series was heavily weighted towards the view that the theory of evolution is “a science fact” that is accepted by “virtually all reputable scientists in the world”, and not a theory that has weaknesses and strong scientific critics.
The series did not even bother to interview scientists who have criticisms of Darwinism: not “creationists” but bona fide scientists. To correct this deficiency, a group of 100 dissenting scientists felt compelled to issue a press release, “A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism”, on the day the first program was scheduled to go to air. Nobel nominee Henry “Fritz” Schaefer was among them. He encouraged open public debate of Darwin’s theory:
Some defenders of Darwinism embrace standards of evidence for evolution that as scientists they would never accept in other circumstances.
We have seen this same “unscientific” approach applied to archaeology and anthropology, where “scientists” simply refuse to prove their theories yet appoint themselves as the final arbiters of “the facts”. It would be naive to think that the scientists who cooperated in the production of the series were unaware that there would be no counter-balancing presentation by critics of Darwin’s theory.
Richard Milton is a science journalist. He had been an ardent true believer in Darwinian doctrine until his investigative instincts kicked in one day. After 20 years of studying and writing about evolution, he suddenly realised that there were many disconcerting holes in the theory. He decided to try to allay his doubts and prove the theory to himself by using the standard methods of investigative journalism.
Milton became a regular visitor to London’s famed Natural History Museum. He painstakingly put every main tenet and classic proof of Darwinism to the test. The results shocked him. He found that the theory could not even stand up to the rigours of routine investigative journalism.
The veteran science writer took a bold step and published a book titled The Facts of Life: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism. It is clear that the Darwinian myth had been shattered for him, but many more myths about science would also be crushed after his book came out. Milton says:
I experienced the witch-hunting activity of the Darwinist police at first handÉit was deeply disappointing to find myself being described by a prominent Oxford zoologist [Richard Dawkins] as “loony”, “stupid” and “in need of psychiatric help” in response to purely scientific reporting.
(Does this sound like stories that came out of the Soviet Union 20 years ago when dissident scientists there started speaking out?)
Dawkins launched a letter-writing campaign to newspaper editors, implying that Milton was a “mole” creationist whose work should be dismissed. Anyone at all familiar with politics will recognise this as a standard Machiavellian by-the-book “character assassination” tactic. Dawkins is a highly respected scientist, whose reputation and standing in the scientific community carry a great deal of weight.
According to Milton, the process came to a head when the London Times Higher Education Supplement commissioned him to write a critique of Darwinism. The publication foreshadowed his coming piece: “Next Week: Darwinism – Richard Milton goes on the attack”. Dawkins caught wind of this and wasted no time in nipping this heresy in the bud. He contacted the editor, Auriol Stevens, and accused Milton of being a “creationist”, and prevailed upon Stevens to pull the plug on the article. Milton learned of this behind-the-scenes backstabbing and wrote a letter of appeal to Stevens. In the end, she caved in to Dawkins and scratched the piece.
Imagine what would happen if a politician or bureaucrat used such pressure tactics to kill a story in the mass media. It would ignite a huge scandal. Not so with scientists, who seem to be regarded as “sacred cows” and beyond reproach. There are many disturbing facts related to these cases. Darwin’s theory of evolution is the only theory routinely taught in our public school system that has never been subjected to rigorous scrutiny; nor have any of the criticisms been allowed into the curriculum.
This is an interesting fact, because a recent poll showed that the American public wants the theory of evolution taught to their children; however, “71 per cent of the respondents say biology teachers should teach both Darwinism and scientific evidence against Darwinian theory”. Nevertheless, there are no plans to implement this balanced approach.
It is ironic that Richard Dawkins has been appointed to the position of Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. He is a classic “Brain Police” stormtrooper, patrolling the neurological front lines. The Western scientific establishment and mass media pride themselves on being open public forums devoid of prejudice or censorship. However, no television program examining the flaws and weaknesses of Darwinism has ever been aired in Darwin’s home country or in America. A scientist who opposes the theory cannot get a paper published.
The Mysterious Origins of Man was not a frontal attack on Darwinism; it merely presented evidence that is considered anomalous by the precepts of his theory of evolution.
Returning to our bastions of intellectual integrity, Forest Mims was a solid and skilled science journalist. He had never been the centre of any controversy and so he was invited to write the most-read column in the prestigious Scientific American, “The Amateur Scientist”, a task he gladly accepted. According to Mims, the magazine’s editor Jonathan Piel then learned that he also wrote articles for a number of Christian magazines. The editor called Mims into his office and confronted him.
“Do you believe in the theory of evolution?” Piel asked.
Mims replied, “No, and neither does Stephen Jay Gould.”
His response did not affect Piel’s decision to bump Mims off the popular column after just three articles.
This has the unpleasant odour of a witch-hunt. The writer never publicly broadcast his private views or beliefs, so it would appear that the “stormtroopers” now believe they have orders to make sure “unapproved” thoughts are never publicly disclosed.
TABOO OR NOT TABOO?
So, the monitors of “good thinking” are not just the elite of the scientific community, as we have seen in several cases; they are television producers and magazine editors as well. It seems clear that they are all driven by the singular imperative of furthering “public science education”, as the president of the Cambrian Institute so aptly phrased it.
However, there is a second item on the agenda, and that is to protect the public from “unscientific” thoughts and ideas that might infect the mass mind. We outlined some of those taboo subjects at the beginning of the article; now we should add that it is also “unwholesome” and “unacceptable” to engage in any of the following research pursuits: paranormal phenomena, UFOs, cold fusion, free energy and all the rest of the “pseudo-sciences”. Does this have a familiar ring to it? Are we hearing the faint echoes of religious zealotry?
Who ever gave science the mission of engineering and directing the inquisitive pursuits of the citizenry of the free world? It is all but impossible for any scientific paper that has anti-Darwinian ramifications to be published in a mainstream scientific journal. It is also just as impossible to get the “taboo” subjects even to the review table, and you can forget about finding your name under the title of any article in Nature unless you are a credentialled scientist, even if you are the next Albert Einstein.
To restate how this conspiracy begins, it is with two filters: credentials and peer review. Modern science is now a maze of such filters set up to promote certain orthodox theories and at the same time filter out that data already prejudged to be unacceptable. Evidence and merit are not the guiding principles; conformity and position within the established community have replaced objectivity, access and openness.
Scientists do not hesitate to launch the most outrageous personal attacks against those they perceive to be the enemy. Eminent palaeontologist Louis Leakey penned this acid one-liner about Forbidden Archeology: “Your book is pure humbug and does not deserve to be taken seriously by anyone but a fool.” Once again, we see the thrust of a personal attack; the merits of the evidence presented in the book are not examined or debated. It is a blunt, authoritarian pronouncement.
In a forthcoming instalment, we will examine some more documented cases and delve deeper into the subtler dimensions of the conspiracy.
© 2002 by Will Hart