❝Out of Africa Theory Officially Debunked❞

#1
http://atlanteangardens.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/out-of-africa-theory-officially-debunked.html

I thought this was very interesting, especially concerning the last interview with Tim Freke taking on the Darwin conspiracy. What I also thought was interesting is that this was announced May 3, 2014 and I'm just the past week made aware of it. I looked around the usual main stream accepted skeptic sites and I have not seen one mention anywhere. Nothing...

IMO, the Out of Africa meme is the same or at least very similar lines as the Darwin meme that has been part of the state sponsored educational indoctrination. Which is why, I surmise, I've not found this anywhere yet.

Has anyone run across this?

Matt
 
#2
I read a story the other day about a site in North Africa that is about 70,000 years old. It was discovered by a team of Polish researchers. Is this linked? I think it is great how we are constantly rewriting the timeline but yet they are still teaching the same history they were in the 50s.

Btw, I love your profile pic.
 
#4
http://atlanteangardens.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/former-world-banker-says-second-species.html
Yes, I think we can safely say the credibility of this site is piss poor. That and their obsession with race is a little disturbing: http://atlanteangardens.blogspot.com.au/search/label/Aryan
Wonder if the banker who supposedly said this was burning to say "jews"but instead said something different.
radicalpolitik can you elaborate on why you believe the Atlanean Garden blog has any significance on the validity of the data being presented in the paper Re-Examing the “Out of Africa” Theory and the Origin of Europeoids (Caucasians) in the Light of DNA Genealogy written by Anatole A. Klyosov and Igor L. Rozhanski and felt it was important to attempt to create some conspiratorial connection(I'm guessing here, because I am not clear on what exactly the point was) rather than focusing on the information?

On a side note, after reading your critique, I decided to look at the paper more intently, but what I noticed quite interestingly instead, were a few somewhat peculiar coincidences and odd parallels.


The Atlantean Garden published the article May 3, 2014. As I originally stated, I had looked around for any responses and there weren't any. However, now if the search is made, the article is now on all the mainstream skeptic sites. A few of the alternative sites were a day ahead of me, but none of the skeptic sites were. Nothing from May 3 till July 28, then it's everywhere. A very peculiar coincidence.

The odd parallel is that when the skeptic forums are browsed, they are first observed vigorously trashing the blog and then also make some attempt at a conspiratorial connection(I'm guessing again, because I don't make this connection and don't see any relevance what so ever) between the Atlatean Garden blog and the paper. The members at these site proceed to generously paint the article with a staple of regurgitated pseudoskeptic and debunker-speak words e.g. woo, dubious, and rubbish. They really like those words in particular, I've noticed. And, they also toss in the implied racist smear by mentioning the jew thing, but how or whatever is supposed to somehow be important and relevant to the paper, is also left out and not made. I guess everyone is just supposed to bridge that and make some mental leap or connection on their own. To what? Scare off any interested, lest they get dirtied with antisemitism label by proxy? SMH.

Anyway, the paper just happen to be an article published in a blog that has nothing, at all, as far as I can find, to do with the authors. Another spectacular failure demonstration by the so called skeptics who are supposedly championing science and truth against the evil woo! Do these other forums come with mandatory mental blinders or induce some cognitive myopia? I've also noticed something else, they believe they are never wrong. Never. Really. Not kidding. Now I'm not a psychologist, but isn't that megalomania i.e. pathological narcissism. Guess I'm not surprised. Oh well...
 
#5
http://atlanteangardens.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/former-world-banker-says-second-species.html
Yes, I think we can safely say the credibility of this site is piss poor. That and their obsession with race is a little disturbing: http://atlanteangardens.blogspot.com.au/search/label/Aryan
Wonder if the banker who supposedly said this was burning to say "jews"but instead said something different.
I took the time to respond thoughtfully and asked questions I would genuinely appreciate a response to or I would not have responded. That is how this works.

If you do not intend to return the courtesy and respond, then please do not bother responding to me from here on out. I consider it a waste of my time and an annoyance if individual feel they can just offer some trite and shallow opinion, believing, for some inexplicable reason, that this constitutes a cogent or even reasonable reply that they also believe needs no follow up, if questioned.

Really...what's the point of being in a forum, if you're not reciprocating? If the subjects are outside of your comfort zone, then you're in the wrong forum.

If your response is to this reply and not the original post, then please do not bother as well.
 
#6
I read a story the other day about a site in North Africa that is about 70,000 years old. It was discovered by a team of Polish researchers. Is this linked? I think it is great how we are constantly rewriting the timeline but yet they are still teaching the same history they were in the 50s.

Btw, I love your profile pic.
Thanks Botchcat. I made it myself. I'm a sci-fi aficionado and one of my favorite TV series was and still is, is The Outer Limits from 1963-1965, not the lame modern wannabes. In fact, IMO, nothing afterward even compares to the original series. It was and still a premier example of what is sometimes called hard science fiction. The episodes are still way ahead of the feeble and watered down recycled crap we get now.

Just think, the original series actually included human constructed interstellar craft that were using some type of field propulsion routinely vs. the nonsense that is typically depicted on TV and movies now which are still chemical reaction rocket propellant. Nothing but pure and absolute directed disinformation being used to brainwash the masses into believing humanity still needs to use technology that is 3,000 years old. Think about that. Basically glorified bottle rockets. I can barely watch anything that still pushes that retardedness. And, the series were far more than that in many ways.

Anyway, the episode I pulled the image from is called "The Sixth Finger."

Concerning your reply, IMO the history we are allowed to know, will never reflect real history. It's all misdirection, just like the science we are also allowed to know. A somewhat cryptic response, I do apologize, but when reading has led you down a nearly unending vast plain of rabbit holes with implications that would be far too esoteric and occulted for the average main stream media consumer, you learn some things that were discussed, probably should not have been brought up in the first place. Unless the other person has that 1,000yd stare too.
 
#7
Right on. I have a master's degree in history, I was still in school when I discovered Fingerprint of the Gods by Graham Hancock. Being younger and a bit more fiery I tried to talk about his work. I went to a Catholic college that happened to have this leftist Marxist history department. The professors, while good people were resistant to conventional dissent from their perspective nonetheless something so 'out there'.

I intuitively knew that there was so much more.
 
#8
radicalpolitik can you elaborate on why you believe the Atlanean Garden blog has any significance on the validity of the data being presented in the paper Re-Examing the “Out of Africa” Theory and the Origin of Europeoids (Caucasians) in the Light of DNA Genealogy written by Anatole A. Klyosov and Igor L. Rozhanski and felt it was important to attempt to create some conspiratorial connection(I'm guessing here, because I am not clear on what exactly the point was) rather than focusing on the information?
On a side note, after reading your critique, I decided to look at the paper more intently, but what I noticed quite interestingly instead, were a few somewhat peculiar coincidences and odd parallels.

The Atlantean Garden published the article May 3, 2014. As I originally stated, I had looked around for any responses and there weren't any. However, now if the search is made, the article is now on all the mainstream skeptic sites. A few of the alternative sites were a day ahead of me, but none of the skeptic sites were. Nothing from May 3 till July 28, then it's everywhere. A very peculiar coincidence.

The odd parallel is that when the skeptic forums are browsed, they are first observed vigorously trashing the blog and then also make some attempt at a conspiratorial connection(I'm guessing again, because I don't make this connection and don't see any relevance what so ever) between the Atlatean Garden blog and the paper. The members at these site proceed to generously paint the article with a staple of regurgitated pseudoskeptic and debunker-speak words e.g. woo, dubious, and rubbish. They really like those words in particular, I've noticed. And, they also toss in the implied racist smear by mentioning the jew thing, but how or whatever is supposed to somehow be important and relevant to the paper, is also left out and not made. I guess everyone is just supposed to bridge that and make some mental leap or connection on their own. To what? Scare off any interested, lest they get dirtied with antisemitism label by proxy? SMH.

Anyway, the paper just happen to be an article published in a blog that has nothing, at all, as far as I can find, to do with the authors. Another spectacular failure demonstration by the so called skeptics who are supposedly championing science and truth against the evil woo! Do these other forums come with mandatory mental blinders or induce some cognitive myopia? I've also noticed something else, they believe they are never wrong. Never. Really. Not kidding. Now I'm not a psychologist, but isn't that megalomania i.e. pathological narcissism. Guess I'm not surprised. Oh well...
I apologise I haven't got round to addressing your points. But firstly, one paper does not prove anything. Secondly, it matters very much that this site seems rather obsessed with race. Because it shows it has some sort of agenda and will look for evidence to prove its views, thus suffering from confirmation bias And I don't think the notion of it being anti-semitic are unfounded at all. At the very the least, the fact that it allows comments like this

"We won't get the truth until "project white-European extinction' is complete. Amazing how such obvious hate is glossed over under the guise of being something good"

I've seen these statements before on youtube. From neo-nazis and white supremacists, or on their site 'Stormfront' so this is why my alarm bells are ringing.

or my personal favourite, to your "scared off by anti-semitism"

"The out of Africa lie was not a theory but full on Jewish propaganda."

Or this nonsense: http://atlanteangardens.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/former-world-banker-says-second-species.html

Which sounds eerily similar to "jews control the world"

And another delightful load of tosh here: http://atlanteangardens.blogspot.co...014/04/legendary-pre-flood-civilizations.html

There's also the planet nubiru nonsense too. I seem to recall predictions for that in 2012, but whoops, nothing there!

Plus the talk of these ancient lands and peoples who came from it sounds just like this http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Main_Page.

So you'll understand why I'm suspicious. The paper itself looks reputable, but the fact that it's being used to push the sites' agenda is deeply suspect.
 
Last edited:
#9
I think what frightens me, is the extent to which science can be used to push agendas that have nothing to do with the truth. For example, New Scientists finally lifts the lid on the remarkable fact that there never really was much decent data connecting saturated fat with heart disease:

http://www.newscientist.com/article...on-a-plate-the-truth-about-saturated-fat.html

The point is, that there really wasn't ever good evidence, basically because of the huge problems in doing a meaningful study of the long term consequences of humans consuming different kinds of diet! The magazine article exposes a lot of the evidence, but it isn't nearly as critical of the scientific process as I think it should be! Another aspect of this - also discussed in the article - is that part of the 'obesity crisis' and the associated rise in type-2 diabetes may have been exacerbated by the efforts to scare people off fatty foods in favour of carbohydrates!

Likewise, the Global Warming CO2 scare seems to have been pushed despite the near complete lack of evidence. Let's not argue about that however!

I can well imagine that the Out of Africa story might have been constructed in a similar way - but I don't want to comment on specifics because I don't know enough.

Part of the problem, I think, is that science has become a lot too keen to come to definite conclusions - not waiting long enough to see if they hold up. Ideas that sound PC simply have a head start in circumstances where the evidence is, in truth, utterly ambiguous.

Logically, the truth about our pre-history should have nothing to do with our views on race!

Also, as Matt points out, it really is completely illogical to become suspicious of a paper because it is referenced on a dubious website!

David
 
#11
Part of the problem, I think, is that science has become a lot too keen to come to definite conclusions - not waiting long enough to see if they hold up.
I don't think "waiting long enough" is necessarily completely useful. An accepted theory might be superseded or invalidated outside of one's own lifetime.

Recently I was watching a TV program on the history of science, some aspect of chemistry I think it was. Some prominent historical figure's contribution was assessed along the lines of "he didn't understand it properly" - with the unstated subtext "but of course we do". I think there's a need to stop considering out current knowledge as being "correct", rather everything we think we know is merely provisional and may be invalidated in the future.

Edit: Also, there is often an enthusiasm to talk in terms of certainty, to present a point of view as though it was established fact, whereas it is often little more than an opinion. There should be more willingness to embrace uncertainty and to openly speak in such terms, rather than always pretending to have an answer to every question.
 
Last edited:
#12
Also, there is often an enthusiasm to talk in terms of certainty, to present a point of view as though it was established fact, whereas it is often little more than an opinion. There should be more willingness to embrace uncertainty and to openly speak in such terms, rather than always pretending to have an answer to every question.
Yes, and I think that phoney certainty can infect other researchers. Part of the problem is that nobody can know everything - even their own narrow discipline. For example, in the saturated fat example that I started with, a guy called Ancel Keys really got things rolling against saturated fat, with a graph showing heart disease country by country plotted against saturated fat consumption. The data followed a nice curve, and it wasn't until later that someone else discovered that he had only used those countries that fitted his curve - despite having more data available. Countries like France were way off the curve, but not included! I think politics got in the way as well, because it was convenient to vilify fat and not sugar - which now seems to be more like the real villain!

Another problem seems to be embarrassment! As it becomes clear that an idea is wrong, there is huge reluctance in the science community to change tack. The NS article ended by saying that official guidance on saturated fat remains the same! I'd guess the whole crazy juggernaut has a few years to run yet!

There is another, related bombshell waiting to come out (vaguely alluded to in the NS article). There is also precious little evidence that high cholesterol levels are linked to heart disease!

David
 
#13
I think what frightens me, is the extent to which science can be used to push agendas that have nothing to do with the truth. For example, New Scientists finally lifts the lid on the remarkable fact that there never really was much decent data connecting saturated fat with heart disease:

http://www.newscientist.com/article...on-a-plate-the-truth-about-saturated-fat.html

The point is, that there really wasn't ever good evidence, basically because of the huge problems in doing a meaningful study of the long term consequences of humans consuming different kinds of diet! The magazine article exposes a lot of the evidence, but it isn't nearly as critical of the scientific process as I think it should be! Another aspect of this - also discussed in the article - is that part of the 'obesity crisis' and the associated rise in type-2 diabetes may have been exacerbated by the efforts to scare people off fatty foods in favour of carbohydrates!

Likewise, the Global Warming CO2 scare seems to have been pushed despite the near complete lack of evidence. Let's not argue about that however!

I can well imagine that the Out of Africa story might have been constructed in a similar way - but I don't want to comment on specifics because I don't know enough.

Part of the problem, I think, is that science has become a lot too keen to come to definite conclusions - not waiting long enough to see if they hold up. Ideas that sound PC simply have a head start in circumstances where the evidence is, in truth, utterly ambiguous.

Logically, the truth about our pre-history should have nothing to do with our views on race!

Also, as Matt points out, it really is completely illogical to become suspicious of a paper because it is referenced on a dubious website!

David
Denise Minger's new book "Death by Food Pyramid" takes apart Ancel Keys nicely. She also talks about a guy who was trying to push the idea that sugar was a key problem with heart disease who feuded with keys, but whose voice was drowned out. She also talks briefly about a woman who worked for the FDA and realized these errors with FDA eating guidelines and was told to hush it up.

She also has an excellent analysis of The China Study.

Fats are where we get energy, and if they're the right ones, can be highly nutrient dense. Pretty much not a day passes without me consuming cod liver oil, coconut oil, and grass fed butter. I also eat a good deal of veggies, but a cup of, say, broccoli has drastically less carbs than a bagel . . . Yet we're told o'er and o'er to increase consumption of (whole) grains. It's almost conspiratorial to me.
 
#14
I apologise I haven't got round to addressing your points. But firstly, one paper does not prove anything. Secondly, it matters very much that this site seems rather obsessed with race. Because it shows it has some sort of agenda and will look for evidence to prove its views, thus suffering from confirmation bias And I don't think the notion of it being anti-semitic are unfounded at all. At the very the least, the fact that it allows comments like this

"We won't get the truth until "project white-European extinction' is complete. Amazing how such obvious hate is glossed over under the guise of being something good"

I've seen these statements before on youtube. From neo-nazis and white supremacists, or on their site 'Stormfront' so this is why my alarm bells are ringing.

or my personal favourite, to your "scared off by anti-semitism"

"The out of Africa lie was not a theory but full on Jewish propaganda."

Or this nonsense: http://atlanteangardens.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/former-world-banker-says-second-species.html

Which sounds eerily similar to "jews control the world"

And another delightful load of tosh here: http://atlanteangardens.blogspot.co...014/04/legendary-pre-flood-civilizations.html

There's also the planet nubiru nonsense too. I seem to recall predictions for that in 2012, but whoops, nothing there!

Plus the talk of these ancient lands and peoples who came from it sounds just like this http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Main_Page.

So you'll understand why I'm suspicious. The paper itself looks reputable, but the fact that it's being used to push the sites' agenda is deeply suspect.
Thank you. However, the point is being missed. The paper; Re-Examing the “Out of Africa” Theory and the Origin of Europeoids (Caucasians) in the Light of DNA Genealogy written by Anatole A. Klyosov and Igor L. Rozhanski, was also a featured article in;

rtrixie.tumblr.com
nationalistasatrunews.com
www.consciousazine.com
emperor-meinhoff.tumblr.com
https://theawakezone.wordpress.com
vnnforum.com
amagicast.com
www.arkeologiforum.se
gingoog-city.regionaldeals.net

And, many more. Shall we squabble and equivocate about these sites as well? Because that would be completely sensible, right? Wrong. I'm completely baffled on why people, that I'm assuming have capable reasoning abilities, are continuing to focus on a blog. It's a blog. One more time, it's a blog. The blog had nothing, again, nothing, one more time, nothing to do with the authors of the paper. The paper was published here; http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=19566#.U9decfldXrc.

Are there any more questions?
 
Top