For years - in fact, for decades - there have been persistent rumors about an "Archeology-gate," i.e., the deliberate suppression and sometimes even destruction of archaeological evidence contradicting the standard academic models of human prehistory, models inspired largely by the effect of Darwinism on the fields of anthropology, paleontology, and archaeology. And I must admit, I place some credence in some of those stories. In fact, this previous week  have been blogging about such archaeological anomalies and some of their potential implications, and in particular I have been concentrating on short review of a significant little book by alternative archaeologist - perhaps one might best call him a Vedic archaeologist - Michael Cremo, a book entitled Forbidden Archeologist, consisting of a collection of his articles and essays for Atlantis Rising magazine. In the sixteenth chapter of his book, entitled "At the World Archeological Congress," Cremo recounts three documentable forms of just such suppression.

The first of these concerns the discovery of ancient human remains inside the gold mining tunnels at Table Mountain in California. The findings were reported to the world by Dr. J.D. Whitney, a government geologist in California. As Cremo notes, "these bones and artifacts were found embedded in formations that geologists now say belong to the Eocene period (38-55 million years)."(p. 78)  Cremo observes that when Dr. Whitney announced his findings, the Smithsonian Institution - around which many other archaeology-gate rumors swirl - stepped into the picture to denounce Whitney. According to Cremo, William B. Holmes, a Smithsonian Institution physical anthropologist, stated "If Professor Whitney had fully appreciated the story of human evolution as it is understood today, he would have hesitated to announce the conclusions formulated, notwithstanding the imposing array of testimony with which he was confronted."(p. 78). Cremo sums it up, quipping: "In other words, if the evidence did not fit the theory, then the evidence had to be set aside, which is exactly what happened."(p. 78)

But why "set aside" such evidence? An answer perhaps is afforded by a glance at the next bit of deliberate suppression, this time in an episode that Cremo experienced personally. Contacted by NBC television, Cremo participated in a special called The Mysterious Origins of Man. As he recounts, when the special was being recorded, scientists actually tried to prevent NBC from airing the show (apparently nothing challenging the evolution-Christian intelligent design dialectic in American "schools" could be allowed on the air). When this failed, they "tried to get the Federal Communications Commission to investigate, censure, and fine NBC."(p. 78)

The final case mentioned by Cremo is the now famous case of Virgina Steen-McIntyre, who at the time was an academic geologist, and who was called in to help investigate an archaeological site at Hueyatlaco, Mexico, where ancient human tools and animals - self-evidently butchered - had been discovered. "Using four different methods(uranium series dates on butchered animal bones, zircon fission track dating on volcanic layers above the artifact layers, tephra hydration dating of volcanic crystals found in the volcanic layers above the artifact layers, and standard stratigraphic analysis)" McIntyre and her associates dated the site to 250,000 BC...which, of course, is contradictory to the then regnant evolutionary though that modern man originated some 200,000 years ago, and certainly contradictory to modern genetics studies that confirm similar approximate dates. Naturally enough, Steen-McIntyre found herself out of a teaching job, and all future positions closed to her.

While I can find one such occurrence possible to ascribe to "academic hubris" and the normal human response and desire not to "be wrong," three such occurrences, with mobilized suppression - one of which in defense of the Darwinist dogma, and one suspects the others were as well - to mere coincidence or to such innocuous causes. In short, these were clear cases of deliberate suppression of evidence contradicting the regnant scientific model within anthropology, paleontology, and archaeology.

So the question is....why? In my opinion, the answer is relatively simple: if one were to grant the great antiquity of man, then this would be to confirm certain ancient myths and epics - most notably those of India - and that would in turn raise the distinct possibilities that the technologies also described in those epics, as well as the tale of human origins they contain actually exist and happened. And that technology, as the readers of my books well know, far exceeds our own, both in its potential for good, and ill. This the powers that be cannot have, so while they look for these things covertly themselves, they must keep the rest of us distracted with oil crises, "fossil fuel" myths, and Darwinist dogmas, all handed out by "scientists" on their payrolls.


Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and "strange stuff". His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into "alternative history and science".


  1. Enlil's a Dog on May 10, 2012 at 5:40 pm

    A good “de-bunking” Evolution argument..It is quite a detailed piece and brings with it, its source references at the completion of the article.

  2. Nidster - on February 10, 2012 at 8:46 am

    Here is an intriguing statement made by, Citizen Quasar: “There are MILLIONS OF FACTS that prove evolution to be not only a “theory” but also a scientific fact.”

    I do not claim to be very smart, but I have often wondered if someone, anyone, were given a ‘lump’ of inert clay that contained everything necessary to produce a living, one-cell organism capable of reproduction, and at least similar in complexity to the simplest form of life found on Earth, could they do it?

  3. Ken Cormick on February 9, 2012 at 11:25 pm

    I’ve just read this entire blog and I have found the whole thing very humourous lol..It would appear to me that Citizen Quasar is right and so are his detractors here..

    If his detractors are suggesting that evolution does not fit the paradigm of Academic thinking relative to Homo Sapien Sapien, then I would be inclined to agree.

    However if Citizen Quasar’s argument is based on the transitional changes of all species over a period of Millenia or far longer, then he is also correct because species do evolve, adapt and change with time – even if it is ever so subtley..

    Just my two cents worth here 🙂

  4. paul degagne on October 10, 2011 at 3:47 am

    I just recalled an interesting piece of gossip about Claude the Actor?

    It was rumored he overstepped his boundaries while on a nightclub dance floor and someone cold-cocked him with one punch and he was out like-a-light!!!!!

    So much for Movie Matinee Idols although I kind of like his clean-cut-look.

    He could learn a few things from lying politicians and that is HOW TO DUCK an issue INSTEAD of being a SITTING DUCK!!!!!

    If Quazar is correct —- Then we are all COUSINS to life itself but I’ll duck that issue, ha, ha!

  5. paul degagne on October 10, 2011 at 3:19 am

    Hello Citizen Quazar,

    You shouldn’t let pipsqueaks like me or others ruffle your feathers. One needs to be stronger than that? Farrell talks about SUPPRESSION of certain information? Do you realize that isn’t the only area of information that is being suppressed?

    Unless you stumbled into this WEB SITE by accident or in a daze, you are interested in and I believe being led to a certain “SOMETHING? or “DIRECTION?” I cant imagine what it is, ha, ha!

    Lets keep it simple:

    HERE’S a FACT for you — You’re here POSTING> And — Right/Wrong – We are entitled to draw any conclusion we want from this FACT.

    There is a saying, “The Truth shall set you Free.” I kind of agree with that. Along with this adage even the wise suppress information. (well, I guess one cant really call it wise to suppress. It’s more like a fib to protect the INNOCENT. Kind of like what we as parents told our children about certain FACTS OF LIFE or UNDERSTANDINGs we knew would probably damage them at their early or a delicate stage of development.)

    Evidently, your feeling the truth and believe me it does a REAL UNPLEASANT number on the EGO! I recall Claude Von Dam in the movie ‘Universal Soldier where he wakes up (?) in a chair along with others and realizes he is a —-PRODUCT—– a man-made CLONE being fed electronically a FALSE LIFE OF IMAGES OR MEMORIES along with the others in the trailer who aren’t awake.

    Some Acting!. YOU SHOULD HAVE SEEN THE LOOK ON HIS FACE THE MOMENT HE REALIZED HIS THOUGHTS WEREN’T HIS OWN!!!! ( It was worth the boredom of staying in the theater and watching the rest of the crap on how it ended — Instead of becoming an INDEPENDENT INDIVIDUAL or ””begin” to live a life of his own — the movie plot went on to say he decided to be a servant and help the sic real individual whose stolen memories were implanted in his own clone mind! == what kind of baloney is this?)

    I studied enough Ethnographic Anthropology to understand “be careful what you pray for? I have to chuckle because I am a reckless human being always paying the price for my bravoodo. I like to think I have courage in my original thinking but I know better. (everything it seems is plagarism?)

    Aside from all this FACT-NONSENSE and I agree with you Citizen Quazar – the debate gets a little stale for beating dead horses hours at a time is not my idea of amusing entertainment.

    My suggestion to you Citizen —- Read Farrell’s (if you haven’t already) Babylon’s Bankers with a keen razor-like eye. There are four or five ideas or themes in it which are absolutely pretty intiminating if you can get pass the distraction of the words that are painted around them. ( After-all, Farrell is no Victor Hugo or Shakespeare but so what — He’s got the nose for it and the SCENt is there. Well worth the modest price!

    Citizen —- Don’t be discouraged====== Be like the ant in Frank Sinatra’s ‘Rubber Tree song? If at first your don’t succeed —TRY, TRY AGAIN!

    Have a nice day.

    • Citizen Quasar on October 10, 2011 at 8:13 am

      I have read “Babylon’s Banksters.” I am unsure what you are referring to when you say:

      “There are four or five ideas or themes in it which are absolutely pretty intiminating(sic) if you can get pass the distraction of the words that are painted around them.

      And I am NOT going to go open that book, put in “a keen razor-like eye” and go searching for what you MIGHT be referring to. It is obvious that you are ONLY trying to manipulate me into doing your will, for me to stop insisting on FACTS and for me to go bury my face in a book of your choice.

      You could very easily have quoted a cite from one of Dr. Farrells’ books, “Babylon’s Banksters” for example, if you thought that information would add to this discussion but you chose NOT to do that.

      Instead, you suggest that I go looking in a book for several half-formed ideas that you can’t even articulate, which is par for the course with you, and you think that just because you name one of Dr. Farrells books that you have utilized some kind of mojo that will make me do what you want.

      To add icing to the cake, you insult Dr. Farrell by needlessly criticizing his writing style, “After-all, Farrell is no Victor Hugo or Shakespeare” and you don’t even supply a reason for your doing so.

      Your buddy-buddy nestling tone toward me in this installment and your attempted pat on the back toward my ego have done NOTHING to make us friends, blog pals, nor sparring partners. Get your hands off me and STOP trying to pat me on the back!

      I have spent too much time on this particular blog entry. I had hoped that one or two blithering idiots might see the light of scientific illumination if I just pointed out that proof is what is necessary in the scientific method, as well as in a court of law, and that once this was realized that either proof would be forthcoming or those who make allegations without proof would, out of respect for for the scientific method and for the pursuit of truth, admit their errors and change their minds

      Unfortunately, I have encountered people who would rather make up stories and fashion entire philosophies so that they won’t have to offer any proof to prove their point.

      I’m outta’ here. See ya’ on the flip side.

  6. bdw on October 9, 2011 at 9:07 pm

    Citizen Quasar: your emphasis on “facts” is misplaced here. All the arguments against Darwinism are full of facts: the ones produced by the science of Biology. Just because you have a “fact” does not prove your case: the fact has to be RELEVANT to the case. Quoting the price of tea in China does not prove that the Earth is round. The price is still a fact, it just has no bearing on the shape of the Earth. All the arguments against Darwinism that I like are of that sort. Of course there are other types of arguments, but the really important ones for me are like this.

    The way these arguments work is that no new “scientific facts” are produced (I am speaking in a very general way here: this is my opinion of course). The arguments that interest me are simply the ones that say “you haven’t proven your case.”

    If someone says “2 + 2 = 963,” I do not have to produce the “fact” that “2 + 2 = 4” in order to refute that person. All I have to do is show that 2 + 2 does NOT equal 963. Get the idea??

    So those books that have been mentioned simply take all of your precious facts from the science of Biology that are claimed to “prove” evolution, and then they show that, sorry, it does not follow. One page discusses how “2 + 2 does not equal 963.” The next chapter (or page, or paragraph) then discusses how “9 divided by 3 does not equal 71.” etc etc etc. And I agree. Probably you will not, but if you want to know the whole story, you had better be able to KNOW what all the arguments are against Darwinism, and refute them (not just sweep them under the rug, or just yell “give me facts!”), because they are impressive.

    The famous “Darwin Finches” were my favorite case: I simply could not believe that intellectual dishonesty involved in claiming they had a clear case of evolution there: fascinating.

    The bottom line is that Biology has amassed a huge amount of data, of “facts” as you so fondly call them. Biology has indeed learned a great deal. But those facts are no better than the price of tea in China in proving the theory of evolution. And obviously quoting prices for other Chines commodities does not further the argument. And the most important idea of all is simply that no ever has, or ever will, be able to OBSERVE the actual act of “evolution” (and I believe this is admitted by the Biology establishent, because “it takes too long: thousands, or even millions, of years). It is exactly the same as religion: no one has to actually be able to the real McCoy, it’s always “oh, just trust us, we wouldn’t lie to you.”

    Another huge issue is that “evolution” is not something simple like the number 4, which can easily be “proven” with “2 + 2.” “Evolution” is made up of many, many many diffferent and totally unrelated statments. It is truly vast. And what Biology does is take one small bit of that huge pile, something like “DNA is how the cell produces proteins” , proves that in the lab, and then says “oh wow, we just proved evolution.” But all those theory statements are totally independent, proving one of those, or even most of them, simply does not prove “evolution, the big picture.”

    Now, it is important to admit that evolution has not been disproven: I don’t say that. Maybe it is even right, I don’t know. But it most certainly is NOT proven either. Producing all of the data, the “facts” of biology is indeed “science.” But eh claim that evolution is PROVEN is NOT “science.” If you take Isaac Newton as the benchmark for science, that claim is a million miles away from Newton epistemologically. You can believe it if you want to, just the way some people believe that Jesus died for their sins, but that does not prove it.

    I’m guessing that most folks who like Farrell would be interested in this scam, simply from the epistemological angle. Personally I don’t care whether or not evolution is true: I am simply fascinated by the intellectual dishonesty involved, how ‘science’ is being used, once again, to shove ideas down our throats without having to justify those ideas. “We are the scientists, so just believe whatever we tell you, and shut up” is basically how I see the Darwinists.

    My favorite quote of all time:

    “science knows much, but ignores . . . . practically everything.”

    • Citizen Quasar on October 9, 2011 at 11:59 pm

      I am well versed in a number methods of proof, bdw. Obviously you are NOT.

      What you are doing here, and what you have done here before, is to try to establish some protocol for you NOT having to prove ANYTHING and, though you may be able to convince yourself that your inability to prove, or DISprove, anything is anything more than the ravings of a lunatic, you are mistaken when you imagine that your ravings somehow apply to me and the rest of the real world.

      Since “those books that have been mentioned simply take all of your precious facts from the science of Biology that are claimed to “prove” evolution, and then they show that, sorry, it does not follow” then you surely have not just one but MANY of these facts available in your memory that you can recall lickety-split. So I ask you, for the umpteenth time, to just post ONE of them here by quoting it and to cite the text, the page number, and the paragraph that it comes from.

      I am loosing interest in this whole matter as I see that you (and others) haven’t got a clue and I am beginning to waste my time here. It’s time to put up or shut up, boy.

  7. paul degagne on October 9, 2011 at 7:38 am

    To the “Citizen”,

    Thank you very much for your comments. I believe from your position they are quite accurate. in FACT they triggered some pleasant associations.

    So here we go again,

    I am neither a slow or fast anal-(ist) – I am just only a Half-fast one!!

    Citizen, I really appreciate your comments for they brought back memories of my reading Dostowski or the guy who wrote the grand inquistor in what I think was a leaflet(?) called the UNDERGROUND MAN? (I think he was one of the political nihilists?)

    FACTS, FACTS, FACTS my good man. Nothing but the facts = Factology, yes?

    Some Vietnomese zen monk commented about the limitations of using language or say English because like the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis suggests – it restricts our descriptions and limits our world view. I think the Coppenhagen Conference on Quantum Physics came to that conclusion as well = (there can never be a truly pure Scientific Language so how can they be such a thing as a Pure Fact? I am thinking your trying to slip through the back-door something? Some of us sneaks know that trick but it’s fun watching it played out.

    So the monk was saying that by telling a FICTION OR FICTISHISH (i CANT SPELL) Story about a subject to enhance it and NOT THE FACTS YOUR SCREAMING FOR one can learn or better understand or comprehend things beyond ordinary comprehension. (that is what literature writers/artists do)

    My Good Man Citizen — It is all Literature = English lit, Polish Lit, Scientific Lit, Biological Lit! In fact Sigmund FRAUD never got an award for Psychology but He did get a big one or recognition for writing Literature in a Certain Way.

    One thinks, Oh Yes – I do remember that in this Russian Author’s writings is/ was a character who got the Gallows or Hanged for possessing a small printing press in Tsarist Russia.

    Boy, have things changed since then!

    Today there are millions of electronic printers or copies. Unlike the fellow in the book who went to his death for speaking or printing the truth or having something important to say ….

    Most of the stuff out of electronic printers is not worth the paper its printed on. Too much PARROTING going around —- on and on and on!

    So I thank you for triggering A memory. Now that I recovered from the effects of my brain-dead Education I can look back at the Underground Man and realize he was a Jerk who killed an Old-Woman Jewish Pawnbroker just to prove he was BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL. I think he wasn’t. He was just plain Evil!

    Adios Citizen and have a nice day! It’s feels good when someone else besides me is made a ‘laughing stock of the web site.!

  8. paul degagne on October 9, 2011 at 3:53 am

    To citizen:

    You are a slicer and dicer after my own heart (meaning you may believe in Analytical Philosophy or maybe your even a closet Logical Possitivist, like I was (?) ha, ha, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I recently discovered to my own horror that I am a Rational Empericist and that the two have more similarities then differences. Now I need to find another convenient label for myself that doesn’t equate me with all those ‘SKIN-HEAD Skinner Behaviorist Worshipers of REASON or RATIONALITY alone?). The problem lies not in your observation skills for you said you got excited over some of the material presented in Farrell’s Book. To me that’s a strong indication you are aware of what’s being said (written)?

    I think the origin of this difficulty or debate has more to do with what a further commentator called ‘symund FRAUD and his not so nice nephew.

    i am not so much into these religious retreats but here’s a cute story. In this retreat there was this guy who did everything he wasn’t supposed to like smoke, sneak some meat-eating on the side, have sex, etc. The other devotees in this ashram were getting fed up with this and ask their sic(leader–daddy) get rid of this nuisance.
    Well, big daddy was a wise or clever fellow who knows human nature. His response was as the story goes:

    I keep him around to teach all of you a little bit of TOLERANCE.

    Without that annoying virtue we all turn into what we hate or are fighting against!

    Peace Citizen Quazar, I’m certain you’ll find your ROAD TO DAMACUS (spelt wrong. I’m with your Spirit but not your interpretations.

    Why don’t you read a little Incommensurability Theory. I think it would do you some good?

    • Citizen Quasar on October 9, 2011 at 6:42 am

      Philosophically speaking, I am an objectivist. (Note the lowercase ‘o’.)

      I don’t see why you find me worthy of comment. All I have done is ask for ONE single iota of proof in accordance with the scientific method and a number of people have shrieked and hissed at me.

      I have been called names and, as in your case, some have even attempted to psycho-analize me. Your story about tolerance amuses me as the ONLY thing that anyone has to “tolerate” in me is my deep respect for the truth and my insistence that those who say proof exists actually produce some instead of all of them waving their hands in the air and throwing fearful sideways glances everywhere as if to say:

      “OMG! This man wants us to actually back up our statements with FACTS! He does NOT go in for that “safety in numbers” thing!” “

  9. puckles on October 8, 2011 at 3:06 pm

    Oh, my, such invective. Surely you are not all religionists of one variety or another? The very fact that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution (as amended forever over time) is still called a THEORY, rather than a THEOREM, is because it is still scientifically unproven, albeit believed in fervently by virtually all, much like Roman Catholicism prior to the advent of the Cathars, and later, Luther and Calvin. Of course, the Catholic belief was enforced by pain of death, quite literally, by the Inquisition. There is a similar enforcement agency at work across academia, particularly in respect of archaeology and its artifacts, as well as so-called evolutionary psychology. Should one so much as utter a peep in the wrong direction, the career is derailed forever.

    • Citizen Quasar on October 8, 2011 at 4:56 pm

      I have yet to see ANYONE who says that evolution is NOT a PROVEN FACT to offer ANY proof to the contrary.

      All that I ever hear of is how “academia,” for lack of a better term, ostracizes anyone who disagrees with evolution. I submit that the reason that “academia” does so id because those who disbelieve evolution NEITHER apply the scientific method to their contrary proof NOR… do these same detractors even offer ANY proof.

      While it IS true that academia does ostracize anyone who offers a different interpretation of archeological evidence regarding the dim and distant still-questionable history of mankind, this is NOT the same as ostracizing someone who says that evolution is not a proven fact and who NEVER OFFERS ANY PROOF.

      So let me hear some proof, ya’ll. “Show me the money. Because money talks and bullshit walks.”

      • bdw on October 8, 2011 at 8:04 pm

        There are several very good books that pretty much demonstrate that the Darwinists have most definitely NOT “proven” the theory of evolution. Bottom line: all the research ever done on “evolutioni” proves only that life on this planet is RELATED. HOW all that life BECAME related is simply not proven in any way whatsoever by the biology establishment.

        I’m not claiming that I personally know whether or not evolution is “true.” However, anyone with even a tiny bit of interest in epistemology can see (what any fool can plainly see) that there is no evidence that PROVES that evolution is the correct theory. Maybe it is correct, maybe it isn’t. But the claim that they have “proven” that it is correct is a blatant lie.

        Good books are DARWIN ON TRIAL by Johnson, SHATTERING THE MYTHS OF DARWINISN by Milton, DARWINS’ BLACK BOX by Behe, and NOT BY CHANCE by Spetner (which takes a look at the mathematical issues: very interesting indeed).

        Now, just because evolution is not “proven,” this does not automatically mean that any ‘ole religious view on the issue IS correct: absolutely not.

        However, he above books make clear the dishonesty in the biology establishment. As usual, it’s the same old story of someone wanting to claim the authority of the sort of science that Isaac Newton made famous, without actually doing science at that level.

        • Citizen Quasar on October 8, 2011 at 9:33 pm

          Well, bdw, since you are all read up on the topic, why don’t you just spit out ONE factual, scientifically proven, piece of evidence that is documented in the books that you are mentioning here. Like…uh…CITE ONE paragraph in ANY ONE of those books that you are so fond of. You may even quote it here as I am sure you will NOT be in copyright violation if you do give proper credit.

          Otherwise, I am going to reserve my time for reading OTHER books, like the one’s written by Dr. Joseph P. Farrell.

          • bdw on October 9, 2011 at 7:23 pm

            “ONE factual, scientifically proven, piece of evidence”

            Hey, whenever the Darwinian establishment can produce one of those, I’ll waste my time typing a few paragraphs from some ot the books mentioned.

            If you can’t see that I have already stated the crucial EPISTEMOLOGICAL issue, which overrides all else in this matter, then there is nothing that will convince you.

            The references have been given: if you are actually interested in looking at both sides of the argument, you will look at them. To claim to KNOW the answer when you refuse to even see what the counterarguemts are once again proves your dishonesty.

  10. Jabrinka on October 8, 2011 at 2:36 pm

    try to find what happened to the Egyptian artifacts discovered in 1908 in a cave in the face of the Grand Canyon,, the oversize furniture and implements from Rockwall TX (they flooded that site).. oversize skeletal remains from “Indian ” mounds in Ohio and Indiana.. I am reminded of the vast warehouse in the closing scene in “Raiders of the Lost Ark”… “Top Men” indeed…. I remain … amused…

  11. Citizen Quasar on October 8, 2011 at 12:01 pm

    Is it TRUE, Dr. Farrell? Is it TRUE that you reject the ‘Theory of Evolution?’ As a man, a reader of your books, a poster on your blog, and (eventually) a subscribing web-chatter, I have a right to know a ‘TRUE’ or a ‘False’ on this and I deserve to hear it directly from you.

    Also, if you think that evolution is a false theory, a fraud and a scam, then, especially with your highly cultivated and flourishing knowledge base, you should have NO DIFFICULTY providing ten (or just one) scientifically proven fact(s) proving that evolution is false so I ask you to post as much right here, right now.

    Judging by the considerable amount of your published works seeking to enlighten people and to set the historical record straight, I premise this request on the observable FACT that you want to spread accurate knowledge. OK, spread some. Post some PROOF here now.

    If one of your published books addresses the topic of your, alleged, rejection of evolution for scientifically proven reasons, then please publish the title here as I have only read three of your books so far and I want to put this title at the top of my list to read it next.

    However, please post ONE scientific fact that refutes evolution here, now. Please correct me if I am wrong, מורה

    • bdw on October 8, 2011 at 8:11 pm

      For a theory that LACKS PROOF, we do not need to “refute” it.

      They have not made their case. They have proven the relatedness of all life on earth, and claim that that proves HOW it all became related, an obvious no sequitur. And it is important to realize that until a time machine is invented, there never will by any way to actually verify the theory directly.

      • Citizen Quasar on October 8, 2011 at 9:45 pm

        First of all, bdw, who is this “we” that you are referring to? Is there some group or organization that you represent and, if so, who are they? Otherwise, please name ONE other person that you are referring to when you say “we.” They should identify their self, acknowledge that you DO represent them, and they should stand up/speak up and be counted.

        Else, I will just observe that you are trying to intimidate me by implying that I am somehow outnumbered and that, if I was, this would somehow make a difference.

        A corollary to this is that you believe that truth is somehow VOTED INTO EXISTENCE without regard for facts, especially easily demonstrated ones.

        There are MILLIONS OF FACTS that prove evolution to be not only a “theory” but also a scientific fact. Your refusal to even put forth one iota of proof, coupled with your refusal to counter even one proven fact, speaks legions for your character and the state of your mind.

        And speaking of minds, you bring to MY mind a quote from Ayn Rand that I think is an appropriate response to your claim.

        “Dropping below the level of a savage, who believes that the magic words he utters have the power to alter reality, they believe that reality can be altered by the power of the words they do not utter—and their magic tool is the blank-out, the pretense that nothing can come into existence past the voodoo of their refusal to identify it.”

  12. paul degagne on October 8, 2011 at 8:35 am

    Mindsets – their just like DOGMAS for they keep us static. I was watching some program where the scientist was explaining how we need to look at the Cell Differently? He described the “Cell” as like “a Universe unto itself.” That was enough for me but then the interview immediately when on with a clip of “fractional art” to visually represent the concept of a cell being a Universe. It blew me away!

    His subtle point he was getting at is that the mechanics of the cell look an awful like it was and I know the word is a minefield = A DESIGNED TECHNOLOGY. He even went on in a less sneaky way to suggest an ‘ARCHITECT” could have accomplished this biological feat! (little green men from mars, ha, ha! I’m only joking.)

    I remember a comedian on an old television series called “Laugh-In” that used to go emm, VERY INTERESTING. Afterwards he would also say, ‘VERY STUPID. If you recall he was the german soldier or nazi the scene was satiring ?

    All this stuff makes me say, “VERY INTERESTING<' but unlike the comedian I don't say its stupid because I know that DOGMATIC MINDS do that.

    There are so many holes in Darwin's Theory that you could drive a Mac-truck through all of them. I am surprised anybody whose interested in Farrell can still hold this antique Mythological View of Evolution. If you ask me, and I feel the same way as Cremo and many others that it's more a matter of DEVOLUTION and we're all trying to find our way back home!

    I have a suggestion to make concerning the matter of Scale. Read page 18 to 20 of a book by D.S Allen and his co-author called "Cataclysm – the section in it called "Perspectives – A Question of Scale."

    It's amazing what a scientist/artist can say about ratios. Did you know Mount Everest could be called a pimple on the Earth Skin when you compare or measure its land surface with the entire surface of the Earth?

    They don't teach Geology in that way in conventional schools! If they did or used metaphors like that in a classroom then we all might have learnt something, ha, ha!

    • Citizen Quasar on October 8, 2011 at 11:22 am

      paul degagne: Since “There are so many holes in Darwin’s Theory that you could drive a Mac-truck through all of them” then I request that you name ten of them in response to my request right here.

      I don’t doubt that you can come up with ten LIES that are NOT based on scientific principles but, rather, are nothing but assertions as if asserting the same, and maaaayyyybeee throwing in a little confetti to CONFUSE the issue, scientifically proves them.

      • Citizen Quasar on October 8, 2011 at 11:24 am

        paul degagne:

        I know for a fact that you will NOT supply any proof of any kind here.

  13. Ed Fox on October 8, 2011 at 5:43 am

    For those interested in exploring the Evolution Hoax, check out these classics:
    Icons of Evolution (Wells), Darwin’s Black Box (Behe), Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Denton), Nature’s Destiny (Denton), Edge of Evolution (Behe), Signature in the Cell (Meyers), Origins of Life (Rana & Ross)…and weird thing is, they are all credentialed scientists, not creationists with mail-order degrees.

    • Citizen Quasar on October 8, 2011 at 11:35 am

      Ed Foxx:

      I am NOT interested in going and reading books and watching videos as if this act in itself proves anything; it does NOT.

      The fact that you post the names of some books you have read, videos you have watched, and/or websites you have visited in case somebody wants to go read them proves NOTHING either.

      Since you are so well versed in and educated in disproving the validity of evolution due the the fact that you are so well informed on the matter, I ask you to list ten, or at least ONE, scientifically proven bit(s) of evidence in response to my request here.

      Surely you are interested in spreading the truth in this world of lies and you surely want to set straight those who, like myself, have “mistaken” ideas and you will do this in the interest of educating your fallen comrade(s) and for the pursuit of truth and the betterment of humanity in general.

      FACT: You WON’T do. You CAN’T do it.

      I challenge you, Ed Foxx, to post ten (or at least ONE) bit(s) of scientific evidence here in response to my request.

      • Jeff Reed on October 8, 2011 at 5:29 pm

        Is it just me or is this guy just some dogma-fundie? I am surprised he reads JPF’s books since he seems to have been born knowing everything. Notice he is not interested in reading any books that undermine his personal beliefs. Hence, why he is a fundie. Ed cited some books and this guy is rambling about websites and videos.

        • Citizen Quasar on October 8, 2011 at 10:41 pm

          Jeff Reed:

          Please point out SPECIFICALLY what you are referring to when you accuse me of “dogma.”

          I have NEVER implied that I was “born knowing everything” NOR do I see how you arrive at such a conclusion given that the ONLY thing I have asked for is ONE IOTA OF PROOF; ONE FACT.

          As for you being surprised that I read JPF,s books, I am unaware that there is some reason that someone who is seeking factual information should NOT read JPF’s books as they are all, at least the ones that I have read, VERY FACTUAL and very educational.

          During my continuous request for FACTS in this thread, I have NOT received a single one. What I HAVE received are personal insults and people admonishing me to go read this book, that book, or the other book without a single one of these people citing a single sentence in a single paragraph from a single page of any one of these books which will refute evolution. If there is no proof worth citing in any of these books then why should I waste my time reading any of them?

          If there is so much evidence that is so readily available then why won’t you just post it here? The answer is that there isn’t and that you can’t.

          If there is any dogma present in this discussion, it is the fact that all of you detractors tell me to go read some books and that you refuse to cite a single reference, case, or footnote and you think that this somehow proves your point.

          Also, if “JPF” will step forward and tell me that he would rather I not read his books, then I will certainly oblige him. Are you in good enough with the Good Doctor to persuade him to do so?

      • bdw on October 8, 2011 at 8:15 pm

        Hey, if you won’t read a book or two then you prove your dishonesty in this discussion. THAT IS A FACT.

        This is not an issue that will be resolved with soundbites. THe arguments are book-length.

  14. Thomas Mattingly on October 8, 2011 at 1:19 am


    Hi, Joseph et al ~

    Thank you for cutting to the quick of “fossil fuels” mythology (if only by your ‘sneer quotes’). There was never enough dinosaur poop on the planet (or in fossilized bones) to decay into the oil, gas & coal fuels that we have today.

    Russian oil & gas geology may be (probably is) better than Western oil & gas geology, which does not account for the fact that many oil fields sometimes-if-not-often replenish their reservoirs in a relatively short time.

    As per Russian oil & gas geology, oil comes from the deep magma level of Earth AND has been here long before dinosaur & human poop. Drilling deep enough, we can tap oil at that deep level and have enough oil for an indefinitely long time.

    “Peak Oil” is a myth, a scam, a sham & a fraud. Russian geologists know this and act accordingly. Western oil & gas geologists ACT AS IF they do not; but they do know it. Why? The “Peak Oil” myth maintains high prices for oil & gas until ‘New-Physics/New-Energy’ propulsion & energy tech becomes commonplace.

    If &/or since competent archaeology, geology, paleontology & anthropology may confirm such probable facts, the above may be relevant to your blog.

    Suppression of cheap propulsion & energy tech NOT ONLY maintains high hydrocarbon fuel prices BUT ALSO the quasi-monopoly of Bankster power.

    IF and/or since utilitarian universal abundance may be just around the proverbial corner of cheap energy tech, can you really blame the probably-ancient PTB for suppressing any archaeology that might lead to this conclusion & probable fact?

  15. Jon Norris on October 8, 2011 at 12:25 am

    I entirely agree with you,JPF. The whole Darwinism thing is a con, and always has been. Its followers are as fanatic as the Westboro Baptist Cult, and virulently attack anyone who dares to disagree with them. They make the Inquisition look like a friendly picnic. Just ask Richard Milton.

    The tactics used are exactly the same as the whole Global Warming con: strong emotional appeal, fanatic followers, paid shills, instant and virulent attacks on opponents (in the case of AGW, even before any existed, a sure sign of psywar ops), and so on.

    My favorite comeback for People who heckle me for occasionally playing the lottery by calling me “mathematically challenged,” is to ask them if they believe in evolution (and it is a belief, not a science).

    If they answer “yes,” I point out to them that that, according to the science of statistics, the odds of even ONE strand of modern DNA evolving according to the principles of “natural selection” are exactly the same as walking down the street, bending over at random, and picking up the winning lottery ticket…

    …every week for 11 years in a row.

    It is amazing how quickly that shuts them up.

    Another graphic analogy is the whole multiple tornadoes in a junk yard assembling a 747 thing.

    I had one Anthro professor admit to me, after I broached a similar math fact about evolution, that believing in Evolution wasn’t about the facts, it was about the refusal to accept the alternative.

    I’m sorry, but that ain’t science – it’s fearful ignorance.

    The thing that is silly about these debates is that they are obviously framed and staged to create two diametrically opposed camps, filled with fanatics on both sides who become blinded to the larger aspects of life.

    The real answers lie in the nature of energy, non-observable patterns for lower dimensional physical forms, and the role of consciousness in creating reality. These kinds of drama are meant to distract and waste time and energy.

    Divide and conquer.

    There is a reason we are lied to about this, and why anyone with real power in their writing about it is attacked – there is something behind it all that would be devastating to the “powers that be.”

    Minds are like parachutes – they only work when open.

    • Citizen Quasar on October 8, 2011 at 11:46 am

      “The tactics used are exactly the same as the whole Global Warming con: strong emotional appeal, fanatic followers, paid shills, instant and virulent attacks on opponents (in the case of AGW, even before any existed, a sure sign of psywar ops), and so on.”

      I pursue ONLY the truth. All I ask is for those who say that the ‘Theory of Evolution’ is false, for whatever reason, that those people support their allegations with one or more (10 is my favorite number) SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN FACTS.

      I ask YOU, Jon Norris, to provide at least ONE such FACT here in response to my request. The FACT is that you won’t because you CAN’T, they don’t exist.

  16. Jake Keper on October 7, 2011 at 3:44 pm

    There’s also a book named Bones by Elaine Dewar that examines the sometimes bizarre and unscientific approach to archaeology in the Americas. Not a conroversal as Cremo, but eye opening nonetheless.

  17. marcos anthony toledo on October 7, 2011 at 3:07 pm

    I have read in several books on this subject the problem is history in all it’s froms is at the mercy of dogmatic,political,racial and class forces the Nazis were only following in the foot steps of those who came before. The Scienctific establishment has dug itself into the same hole as the Religious,Political ones for instance the to stupid to build boats and the megafauna overkill to give some examples about how the natives got here and what they did once they were here debates and when they came to the Americas as they say he that controls the past controls the future.

  18. Ken Lemon on October 7, 2011 at 1:12 pm

    Dr. Farrell:
    You should read Lloyd Pye’ book “Everything You Know Is Wrong”. Good old Lloyd “dumps” on the Darwinists and Creationalists BIG TIME.

    He also goes on to discuss the Cabalistic Acedemia and how a lot of items just go missing or hidden away. I love this book as he is not scared to absolutely shitcan main stream adademia and the sold called “bought for” professors of this and that.

    In essence its a MUST READ.

    Oh, and btw, he alignes himself with Sitchin, and believes what I do that Sitchin was just about right on the money.

  19. LSM on October 7, 2011 at 1:04 pm

    “And that technology, as the readers of my books well know, far exceeds our own, both in its potential for good, and ill. This the powers that be cannot have”-

    none of us really knows whether the ‘powers that be’ have access to to this technology or not-

    if they do, all I can say is that if cosmic forces were really that stupid to let a certain insatiably materialistically greedy, power-hungry faction of homo sapiens acquire this knowledge, then:

    “if there is a universal mind, must it be sane?”- (attributed to) Charles Fort

    • HAL838 on October 8, 2011 at 7:00 am

      Well, they do, and therein lies the real problem.
      They give us what they WANT to give us—
      things they can use for surveilance and control.

      According to pretty much all those ‘myths’ we are in the
      darkest, most evil age. That is, unfortunately true—–
      to the extent of mass insanity—or according to Nietzsche,
      “Insanity is most often found collectively rather than
      individually.” Maybe he ought to know…………..

      ‘Insanity’ is something that no sane person can understand,
      since it is defined by the very idea that it DOESN’T
      make sense !

      For example:
      GREED to the point of self-destruction (?)
      because THAT’S where its going !!

      Does anyone care to TRY to explain such a thing ?
      When THEY have the means to create a paradise for all !
      Even space/time or time/space (?) conquered.

      No immortality in the same body.
      You really wouldn’t want that !
      But longer, healthy years?
      Sure. A century is OK with good health.
      Then your body says, ‘time’s up’
      and the heart arrests.

      • LSM on October 8, 2011 at 4:43 pm

        Hi Hal,

        I agree with you totally-

        and I think the last ‘collective creature’ that understands our own behavior is the homo sapien-

        that’s why we’ve allowed such dis-info, con-artists such as Sigmund FRAUD to tell us who we really are and how we should interact (cough) – but, hey, because we’re so smart and understand our own behavior, we let his son-in-law Edward Bernays immediately run with the ball and create ‘marketing’ to sell us junk we don’t need- and that includes psychiatry

        • HAL838 on October 9, 2011 at 7:17 am

          Psychiatry has always been a means of control.
          Easier now with drugs.

          Look up, “Ewen Cameron” and learn how
          psychiatry learns.

          A Canadian who was actually head of
          the newly (at that time) formed
          “American Psychiatric Association.”

          The Nazi docs could not have done it better !!!
          Um, I mean ‘worse.’ ?

          • LSM on October 9, 2011 at 12:00 pm

            Hi Hal,

            I am aware of who Ewen Cameron was-

            if the sources I’ve read are credible, Ewen Cameron was actually a born Scotsman who later worked in Canada- was definitely the head of the APA

  20. Citizen Quasar on October 7, 2011 at 11:00 am

    It was with happiness and relish that I began to read ARCHEOLOGY-GATE. The title you chose for this post, Dr. Farrell, lit up my imagination and taunted me to begin reading it as I am VERY interested in this topic and the intrigue behind it and I know that you are very knowledgeable and you are a good teacher. I knew that I only had to begin reading and that I would soon be educated by you and I would very likely learn something new and fascinating, and that it might very well be the high point of my day.

    Yet the very first sentence of this article let me down as if a strong breeze had suddenly died collapses the sails of a windjammer:

    “…“Archeology-gate,” i.e., the deliberate suppression and sometimes even destruction of archaeological evidence contradicting the standard academic models of human prehistory, models inspired largely by the effect of Darwinism on the fields of anthropology, paleontology, and archaeology.”

    “…models inspired largely by the EFFECT OF DARWINISM (emphasis mine) on the fields of anthropology, paleontology, and archaeology.” defines “Darwinism” as:

    “the Darwinian theory that species originate by descent, with variation, from parent forms, through the natural selection of those individuals best adapted for the reproductive success of their kind.”

    Other available sources provide similar definitions and explanations but the distinguishing characteristic of them all is “survival of the fittest.”

    In other words, Dr. Farrell, you are implying that the scientific method is NOT a valid tool for discovering knowledge; that Dr. Judy Wood is incorrect.

    “”If you listen to the evidence carefully enough, it will speak to you and tell you exactly what happened. If you don’t know what happened, keep listening to the evidence until you do. The evidence always tells the truth. The key is to not allow yourself to be distracted away from seeing what the evidence is telling you.”

    There is NOTHING that causally connects Darwinism with “the deliberate suppression and sometimes even destruction of archaeological evidence contradicting the standard academic models of human prehistory.” So why would you, Dr. Farrell (Dr. Ferris?), inject such a statement into such an article as this. Not only did you needlessly interject it, you interjected it in your first sentence and you premised your entire article on it.

    I moved this pan to my back burner so that it wouldn’t boil over and I continued with the matter at had, cooking up the entrée. Take a deep breath, CQ. Let it out.

    Ahh… Hmmm…I continued reading.

    Then, in paragraph three I encountered “(apparently nothing challenging the evolution-Christian intelligent design dialectic in American “schools” could be allowed on the air)” parenthetically interjected as if to give it emphasis when it only ranked a couple of commas. I rolled my eyes back in my head to look at my brain (I could see my mind. I hadn’t lost it. It was still there.) and then I rolled them back forward and I re-read paragraph three again. Personal preference? Poetic license? Perhaps. I plowed ahead.

    OIC: “which, of course, is contradictory to the then regnant evolutionary though(sic) that modern man originated some 200,000 years ago, and certainly contradictory to modern genetics studies that confirm similar approximate dates.”

    “While I can find one such occurrence possible to ascribe to “academic hubris…”:

    1st Occurrence = “Happenstance.
    2nd Occurrence = “Coincidence.”
    3rd Occurrence = “Enemy Action.”

    So I do agree that this amounts to “deliberate suppression.”

    There is was in the last paragraph too. ““fossil fuel” myths, and DARWINIST (emphasis mine) dogmas, all handed out by “scientists” on their payrolls.”

    While I DO agree with you, Dr. Farrell, that an occasional acknowledgement and re-iteration of the nefarious suppression of scientific investigation into the true history of humanity by the so-called “Establishment,” and their motives, is a good thing, using this presentation as a pedestal to validate your sneaked-in subjective implicative conclusion at the beginning, again in the middle, and then again at the end reeks of nothing but the cowardice of a subjectivist who intuitively knows that subjectivism as a tool of cognition is invalid and will collapse if examined directly and that this will prove that consciousness is NOT the Creator of existence and who also knows, but is afraid to admit, that objective reality exists independent of consciousness; ANY consciousness.

    “Darwinism,” scientifically proved evolution exists, as proved by molecular biology if nothing else, and whether humanity came from proto-apes originating on Earth or some other extra-terrestrially engineered or seeded species, the theory of evolution is at least as valid as the theory of relativity and your veiled desire that this is not so is obvious to me. You are only trying to set up a straw man for future use; something that I come here to your blog to avoid.

    After setting up this straw man, you proceed to contrast this with the faithists’ own falsely presented dichotomous “Intelligent Design” (I can’t believe I just capitalized that. UGH!); another straw man.

    This makes your philosophical spectrum analogous to a political spectrum with communism (total government) on one end and fascism (total government) on the other end with nowhere on the spectrum for freedom.

    “If you write a page a day, in a year you will have a book 365 pages long.”

    This should be enough to get me through the weekend.

    ‘See ya’ on the flip side.

    • Jake Keper on October 7, 2011 at 3:33 pm

      Basiclly you are upset that someone has challenged your Evolution Fundamentalism. Like the people JPF writes about, you want to suppress anything contrary to evolution and make out anyone who opposes evolution as unscientific. You’re riddled with contradictions and bad logic my friend. I can find quite a few scientists who disent from evolution and present design in a far more scientific manner than evolution ever has. I have also seen blatant, public and obvious suppression of scientistists who oppose evolution. You’re free to be a EvoFundie, but Darwinism is one of the great myths of our time and I hope JPF explores it someday.

      • Citizen Quasar on October 8, 2011 at 7:38 am

        Jake Keper:

        Basically I am upset that Joseph P. Farrel believes that a scientifically proven fact may be discarded at his whim. While I DO appreciate Dr. Farrell’s educating me to overlooked and intriguing aspects of human history, I do NOT endorse Dr. Farrell’s abandonment of reason and Dr. Farrell’s abandonment of facts.

        I challenge YOU, Jake Keper, to provide me with ten pieces of evidence that disprove evolution and I challenge you, Jake Keper, to provide me with ten pieces of evidence that prove intelligent design.

        I will accept NOTHING from Kent Hovind.

        Also, please point out TWO contradictions in my post.

        But, sigh, I know that you will most likely NOT even bother to respond to my request here; simply because you CAN’T.

    • Citizen Quasar on October 7, 2011 at 5:25 pm

      ““Darwinism,” scientifically proved evolution exists,” SHOULD READ ““Darwinism,” scientifically proved evolution, exists,” and should include the comma after the word “evolution.”

      Without this comma, this statement is as inaccurate as the Constitution’s “grandfather clause” is WITH the comma that was inserted there by the Committee of Style and Arrangement.

  21. Robert Barricklow on October 7, 2011 at 9:26 am

    How Orwellian indeed, digging up old relics of archeological science itself, removing layers of purposeful deceptions, to search out the true origins of mankind.

  22. Dashiell Cabasa on October 7, 2011 at 8:03 am

    I agree, entirely, even!

Help the Community Grow

Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.

Upcoming Events