it's so easy to say how simple it would be to create a hoax text like this now using various technology as explained in the article, the problem i have with that is that at the time it was found...this technology didn't exist. also, i know there are fakes out there, but who in the world has time to sit down and make a fake book...and aside from the 15 minutes of fame you may or may not receive from said discovery until you've been found out, what's the point of making them?! it kinda makes me mad.

I really like this article and the movie attached, I just wish you would use in text citations or show your credentials more. This way it would be easier to pinpoint sources for further reading.

With all due respect, I'm a Reiki Master and Teacher so I hope you aren't "showing" any of your clients the symbols unless they are your students.

Hi April, please do not take my comment the wrong way, it was a request for information. It was certainly not a dig at your article, which I found to be an excellent compilation and very informative. I must also compliment you on the aesthetic layout. The bold orange highlights which turn out to be the links you have included, I took to be simply for reading impact (and very effective they are too).

The reason I was seeking more information is that I recently came across the work of Geneticist Eugene McCarthy. http://www.macroevolution.net/e-book-readers.html and this ties in amazingly well with the content of your article.

McCarthy debunks the Darwinian theory that evolution is driven by compounded micro change, a theory which is in direct odds with the fossil record which steadfastly shows that new lifeforms are formed very rapidly and remain essentially static until their eventual extinction. McCarthy has shown that it is hybridisation that drives the creation of new life forms, and in particular, cross species hybridisation as being responsible for the far less frequent formation of extremely divergent life forms.

But the most significant aspect to come out of McCarthy's shattering perspective, is that man, when our hybrid was first formed, was as intelligent (probably more so) than we are today... We are not evolving Darwinain style into a more intelligent species, we are simply using our innate intelligence to gain more knowledge. We arrogantly mistake our technological knowledge as intelligence, looking down on those peoples and tribes who do not share our knowledge as being unintelligent. This is blatantly not the case.

But of course, knowledge comes and goes with the growth and waning of societies. Our own scientific knowledge base is but a few hundred years old, and we could loose it with the turning of fortunes, returning to a basic survival state of hunter gatherer in another 'dark age'. However, we would retain our intelligence, and in time we would be able to develop a new knowledge base. A different knowledge from a different perspective.

It is rational to consider that the ancients, with their intelligence matching or exceeding ours created an advanced knowledge that allowed them to create the artifacts we today find so incomprehensible from our different knowledge perspective. By way of an example, the Inca had a technology based on thread. Even their accounting and record keeping was done with cordage (Quipu). But when the Spanish destroyed their society, their knowledge and technology were lost. Same intelligence, different knowledge and technology.

McCarthy's work has massive implications for the way we can now understand our world and the workings of our forefathers. But it has even greater implications on our working today, because an academic establishment built on a faulty premise has an inertia that will carry it into dispute with this new insight.

I would very much like to hear your thoughts on the McCarthy theory.

The comment was not about this website far from it. But the plethora strange and loony site abounding on the net in general

Hi Steve, 

Actually, you will not find a single article without a source.  If an article is a news report, then we provide a hyperlink to the original news website where we obtained the information.  If it is an article we have researched ourselves, there will be references at the end. 

With regards to this article you are referring to, it is a wrap up of stories we covered throughout the year, and again, we have provided hyperlinks to those articles where you will find the sources mentioned. 

April

a very valid comment as many will believe only that which agrees with their preconceptions, never coming across the source of the data which the article/website is based. I find very annoying when unable to check whether I`m just reading some imagined fantasy or reproducible research

Would you please? Just drop it. That's a good indication that somebody failed to do their job. Otherwise, nobody would have had the opportunity to dump evidence.

If you want to see something significant of this nature, the museum in Winnemucca, Nevada still has skulls and some bones from that cave in Lovelock, Nevada, where the Utes burned that group of "giants". Actually more like overgrown NFL linemen. But they aren't displayed, so you have to request to see them.

I'm probably a little older than most people here. When I was in grade school, it was still recognized that a race of people who grew from six to nine feet tall once lived here. Many of the First Nations have corroborating legends. There would be a couple of stories a year in our readers about it, and the scientific community was earnestly trying to solve, not hide, the issue. So what happened? All I know is that this research no longer takes place, most of the evidence seems to be gone, and Native Americans are receiving credit for the things those large people built. Like the Mississippian Mounds. I suspect you will find the culprits doing the hiding are from the political world, not the scientific.

On the surface, it is a good idea to let archaeologists "of repute" look at this first. But then that is not exactly what you said, is it? You said "discuss the implications first." There are at least two problems here. The first is the question of the "implications" for whom, and for what? Another, these skulls have been around for a long time and archaeologists have in fact known about them but publicly have shown no interest. Or, I must admit the possibility that they have had interest, perhaps a lot of it, but had a look to the security of their own careers before doing or saying anything that might disturb the official model of human history and their jobs. In point of fact, if these stories were not printed here the public would still be in the dark about them, and insofar unable to make their own contributions to public discussion about them. But then you and a whole lot more like you are ready to tell otherwise intelligent and well educated people that they are not "archaeologists of repute" and therefore are not invited to the party. The public can pay your salaries but are not allowed to know what it is you (claim to) know, eh? And before you or others dismiss these comments as from one of those who has not been invited to the party, one of the uninitiated and therefore someone who should not be listened to, I spent from 1972 to 1998 as either a student or faculty member of a large university and I know the way of the networks and what has been called in recent years the "knowledge screen." As an example of the ongoing conspiracy of silence, of which Quenten walker's comments are a part, or at least seem to serve, B. Fell published his work on ancient writings on the American continent in the 1970's when I was studying anthropology. You would have thought it would have been a sensation in anthropology departments all across the nation. But the fact is I did not hear about it and had to stumble on a copy by accident 30 years later! So, readers should not imagine that these skulls will be handled any more responsibly than were the Dead Sea scrolls by the archaeologists and linguists "of repute." Those scrolls belonged to the whole world, and yet those men, ethical morons, sat on them with a proprietary strangle hold for almost 50 years!
My advice then is to stick with this web site and use it to help you to think for yourself. If you trust the official archaeologists of the official academy you may be long dead before the truth comes out. That is my view and that is my experience. JWC