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.

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 colorful 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 civilization? 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.

STORM-TROOPERS 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 realized 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 rigors 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 hand - it 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 recognize 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 odor 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 and 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 credentialed 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 paleontologist 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 installment, we will examine some more documented cases and delve deeper into the subtler dimensions of the conspiracy.

Brilliant article, it appears there is an atheist cult bent on deceiving us and covering up the true history of mankind.

@OP
I suggest you edit your title to reflect the religious aspect of the story else your thread might end up in science section.

^^

I agree.

Copied it to my notepad, if it gets moved, I will re-post with the correct heading , that is if our friend does not mind.

Good evening k2kay,

I went through the source of the information http://www.unitedearth.com.au/forbidden.html (though I am yet to do an in-depth study of it) and I was able to decipher at a glance that what Richard has is really not exactly science for now. Though his theories seem plausible but without evidence via the scientific process his theories cannot be taken very seriously.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Wr-lXLGCxQ

striktlymi: Good evening k2kay,

I went through the source of the information http://www.unitedearth.com.au/forbidden.html (though I am yet to do an in-depth study of it) and I was able to decipher at a glance that what Richard has is really not exactly science for now. Though his theories seem plausible but without evidence via the scientific process his theories cannot be taken very seriously.

Likewise the evolution myth cannot be taken seriously since it lacks sound scientific basis and is full of tooooooooo many loop holes.

Pastor Kun:

Likewise the evolution myth cannot be taken seriously since it lacks sound scientific basis and is full of tooooooooo many loop holes.

Good evening pastor Kun,

I agree that evolution as propounded in some quarters shouldn't be taken seriously cause it is not backed up by scientific evidence. I also agree that there are some glaring loopholes in that theory and that is why it is yet to become a law.

However, I do believe in some aspects of evolution but this for me should go with the creationist version...like Richard I have always held the view that both theories can go together. Creation tells us the origin while evolution tells us how far we have developed since then.

Having said that, I do not accept that man evolved from apes...I only accept evolution within specific specie and not that one specie evolved into another i.e the thought that a dog can become a lion if there is enough time is a bit too much to accept; and interestingly Richard also share my sentiments.

#I am open to only what science can explain as far as the 'theory' is concerned.

Pastor Kun:

Likewise the evolution myth cannot be taken seriously since it lacks sound scientific basis and is full of tooooooooo many loop holes.

and you think creation has "sound scientific basis"?

Your lack of understanding of evolution does not reduce the theory one bit.

striktlymi:

[b]Having said that, I do not accept that man evolved from apes...[/b]I only accept evolution within specific specie and not that one specie evolved into another i.e the thought that a dog can become a lion if there is enough time is a bit too much to accept; and interestingly Richard also share my sentiments.

#I am open to only what science can explain as far as the 'theory' is concerned.

man did not just evolve from apes, we are also apes.

There is all evidence to support this, i repeat, ALL EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORT EVOLUTION OF MAN FROM PREVIOUS ANCESTRAL APES. I shall provide these evidences with time.

ooman:

man did not just evolve from apes, we are also apes.

There is all evidence to support this, i repeat, ALL EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORT EVOLUTION OF MAN FROM PREVIOUS ANCESTRAL APES. I shall provide these evidences with time.

Guy there is no evidence! Apes are a different specie from humans...the 'Lucy skeleton' some believed to be the link does not conclusively show this link cause it is not human...anyone who accepts evolution in its entirety is only doing that through faith and not via scientific evidence.

striktlymi:

Guy there is no evidence! Apes are a different specie from humans...the 'Lucy skeleton' some believed to be the link does not conclusively show this link cause it is not human...anyone who accepts evolution in its entirety is only doing that through faith and not via scientific evidence.

and now, you talk as if fossils are the only evidence that proves evolution. I never even intended fossils at all. Genetic analysis reveals the fusion of chromosomes 12 and 13 of pan troglodytes, our closest living relative, to form human chromosome 2. This is the perfect proof of evolution, from the same ancestor, of man and other great apes

ooman:

and now, you talk as if fossils are the only evidence that proves evolution. I never even intended fossils at all. Genetic analysis reveals the fusion of chromosomes 12 and 13 of pan troglodytes, our closest living relative, to form human chromosome 2. This is the perfect proof of evolution, from the same ancestor, of man and other great apes

Don't want to go into this argument cause it will lead nowhere...

i have not really read the whole post, 1 and 2. when i do and understand what the post is all about, i will reply in full.

striktlymi:

Don't want to go into this argument cause it will lead nowhere...

I contend that i have all genetic evidence that proves this fact, let me leave you with this video.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK3O6KYPmEw

ooman:

I contend that i have all genetic evidence that proves this fact, let me leave you with this video.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK3O6KYPmEw

C'mon guy, this individual is busy giving us his personal interpretations...that is at best his theory and does not constitute a conclusive evidence.

striktlymi:

C'mon guy, this individual is busy giving us his personal interpretations...that is at best his theory and does not constitute a conclusive evidence.

or you are busy trying to convince yourself that your ancient myth must be true. Because fossils are not accurate and cannot be accurate because of degradation of living systems, i do not normally include fossils when proving evolution except when requested. However, much more homological evidences support that man evolved from previous apes

I will leave you with Sam Harris: If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence could you provide for them to value it?

ooman:

or you are busy trying to convince yourself that your ancient myth must be true. Because fossils are not accurate and cannot be accurate because of degradation of living systems, i do not normally include fossils when proving evolution except when requested. However, much more homological evidences support that man evolved from previous apes

I will leave you with Sam Harris: If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence could you provide for them to value it?

[size=20pt]Similarity does not prove causation.[/size]

striktlymi:

[size=20pt]Similarity does not prove causation.[/size]

[size=20pt]Oh no, but causation proves similarity!![/size]

striktlymi:

C'mon guy, this individual is busy giving us his personal interpretations...that is at best his theory and does not constitute a conclusive evidence.

Do you even realize that the man in that video is a church going, bible believing, God and Jesus and Mary worshipping Roman Catholic?? He has no reason to lie.

striktlymi:

Good evening pastor Kun,

I agree that evolution as propounded in some quarters shouldn't be taken seriously cause it is not backed up by scientific evidence. I also agree that there are some glaring loopholes in that theory and that is why it is yet to become a law.

However, I do believe in some aspects of evolution but this for me should go with the creationist version...like Richard I have always held the view that both theories can go together. Creation tells us the origin while evolution tells us how far we have developed since then.

Having said that, I do not accept that man evolved from apes...I only accept evolution within specific specie and not that one specie evolved into another i.e the thought that a dog can become a lion if there is enough time is a bit too much to accept; and interestingly Richard also share my sentiments.

#I am open to only what science can explain as far as the 'theory' is concerned.

What i believe you are trying to say in the bolded is that you accept Adaptation of species and NOT evolution. Adaptation is perfectly acceptable and provable scientifically unfortunately some overzealous scientists now stretch this adaptation to arrive at evolution without any scientific basis or even evidence that remotely points in that direction.

ooman:

[size=20pt]Oh no, but causation proves similarity!![/size]

Good morning ooman,

The above is still wrong...causation does not necessarily imply similarity. The fact that one thing caused another does not mean that both items would be similar. Anyways, your friend in the video failed to show this causal relationship.

ooman:

and now, you talk as if fossils are the only evidence that proves evolution. I never even intended fossils at all. Genetic analysis reveals the fusion of chromosomes 12 and 13 of pan troglodytes, our closest living relative, to form human chromosome 2. This is the perfect proof of evolution, from the same ancestor, of man and other great apes

As it occurred to you that given that human beings have the same creator with this apes and other animals it should be naturally expected that there should be similarities in the various creation. Take for example if you see a mercedes benz, you don't need to be told because of the distinctive look the manufacturer has designed it with. various models of mercedes resemble each other and even have similar parts[dna] likewise other models of cars of cars with the same manufacturer share similar parts[dna] so it makes perfect sense for beings created by the same creator to to have similarities in their attributes including their dna.

striktlymi:

Good morning ooman,

The above is still wrong...causation does not necessarily imply similarity. The fact that one thing caused another does not mean that both items would be similar. Anyways, your friend in the video failed to show this causal relationship.

True but nature cannot change because you failed to understand it. Homology and analogy are two scientically proven facts, they signify similarities because of similar causation-evolution.

Pastor Kun:

What i believe you are trying to say in the bolded is that you accept Adaptation of species and NOT evolution. Adaptation is perfectly acceptable and provable scientifically unfortunately some overzealous scientists now stretch this adaptation to arrive at evolution without any scientific basis or even evidence that remotely points in that direction.

Good morning pastor Kun,

I believe adaptation implies evolution! One can't really talk about adaptation without referring to evolution. I don't accept the version of evolution some scientists are postulating because they are mixing their personal beliefs with the evidence we have.

I am of the opinion that God created 'life' such that each specie would be able to change some aspects of its inherited characteristics over successive generations when there is a need for it...this however is not something we can will to happen and it occurs only within the confines of a particular specie.

Pastor Kun:

As it occurred to you that given that human beings have the same creator with this apes and other animals it should be naturally expected that there should be similarities in the various creation. Take for example if you see a mercedes benz, you don't need to be told because of the distinctive look the manufacturer has designed it with. various models of mercedes resemble each other and even have similar parts[dna] likewise other models of cars of cars with the same manufacturer share similar parts[dna] so it makes perfect sense for beings created by the same creator to to have similarities in their
attributes including their dna.

That is if you will tell me why a creator would want to make humans he made in his image look like an animal, or why he fused two animal chromosomes to make his own children.

ooman:

Do you even realize that the man in that video is a church going, bible believing, God and Jesus and Mary worshipping Roman Catholic?? He has no reason to lie.

C'mon ooman, even if the man is my dad, I will look him in the eye and tell him: "paps, you got it all wrong...try and not pose your personal interpretation of the evidence as facts"

striktlymi:

Good morning pastor Kun,

I believe adaptation implies evolution! One can't really talk about adaptation without referring to evolution. I don't accept the version of evolution some scientists are postulating because they are mixing their personal beliefs with the evidence we have.

I am of the opinion that God created 'life' such that each specie would be able to change some aspects of its inherited characteristics over successive generations when there is a need for it...this however is not something we can will to happen and it occurs only within the confines
of a particular specie.

Your opinion does not agree with the bible. According to the bible, species are immutable, never changing. The bible says that each animal must reproduce according to its kind. No room given for change over time. Except if you are now a deist?

striktlymi:

C'mon ooman, even if the man is my dad, I will look him in the eye and tell him: "paps, you got it all wrong...try and not pose your personal interpretation of the evidence as facts"

Yea because it disagree with the myth you have gotten yourself to believe in. SMH

ooman:

True but nature cannot change because you failed to understand it. Homology and analogy are two scientically proven facts, they signify similarities because of similar causation-evolution.

Homology assumes common ancestry...though the quantitative evidence for a common ancestry cannot be overlooked but this still is not conclusive. At best, its just another scientific theory which we are still working on. Homology in itself is a fact but its link to evolution is yet to be proven as a scientific fact.

ooman:


Your opinion does not agree with the bible. According to the bible, species are immutable, never changing. The bible says that each animal must reproduce according to its kind. No room given for change over time. Except if you are now a deist?

Can you please give the scriptural backing for the bold?


#If I have not experienced God I would have become a deist

ooman:

Yea because it disagree with the myth you have gotten yourself to believe in. SMH

Nope, because his opinion and conclusion is not science...


#In LB's voice: it's pseudo-science.

striktlymi:

Can you please give the scriptural backing for the bold?


#If I have not experienced God I would have become a deist

Gen 1v11, v12, v25. Since all animals are created from scratch, why should they change? That is the philosophical question here.

striktlymi:

Nope, because his opinion and conclusion is not science...


#In LB's voice: it's pseudo-science.

Most atheist lack biological knowledge not to talk of genetics. Genetics is not rocket science so he is forgiven.

In your own voice-not all atheists became one because of science.