The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Historical insights & thoughts about the world we live in - and the social conditioning exerted upon us by past and current propaganda.
Post Reply
ShaneG
Member
Posts: 77
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:53 am

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by ShaneG » Sun Nov 30, 2014 5:49 pm

Yes I watched a bit of that trailer and left a comment reminding people that dinosaurs never existed. There was a couple of replies calling me a hater and so on but it's to be expected. People love their dinosaurs, and this entry in the Jurassic entertainment/propaganda series will no doubt more than please the masses of raving dinosaur fans.

lux
Member
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by lux » Mon Dec 15, 2014 1:09 am

The usual caveats apply, of course, but I found an interesting site by a person named Robbin Koefoed Jakobsen who I believe is Danish. His site has the stated purpose …
Good Versus Evil News (GVE News) is an independent news service. GVE News wants to wake people up to the false reality created by the mainstreammedia, so called alternative media and governments around the world.
Caveat: Sounds good to me but I have only read one article so far.

OK, moving on ...

What brought me to his site was an article by Robbin titled “The dinosaurs never existed” and can be found here. The article carries a date of September 2013 which is 5 months after the start of this thread (whatever that means).

I found the article to be a good read and covers a number of points already covered in this thread as well as some others that I don't think we've touched on.

One such point is that the “dinosaur bones” put on display in museums are not real bones, the real ones being “too rare to display” and are kept locked away in vaults accessible only by a select few ...
The real bones are incarcerated in thick vaults to which only a select few highly placed researchers hold a key, which means that NO independent researcher has ever handled a tyrannosaurus rex bone. When people unaffiliated with the paleontological establishment attempt to gain access in order to study these dinosaur bones, they are met with refusal upon refusal.
Robbin's article also mentions a factory in China which supplies a large percentage of the “dinosaur skeletons” displayed in museums which are made of fiberglass, crushed and molded animal bones and other materials. The factory is called Zigong City Ocean art Co. and is located, Robbin says, near the location where many of these “feathered dinosaur fossils” were supposedly found.

I found this web site which gives info on this company's products. Of particular interest is this page which shows their range of fake skeletons such as this hot selling number that can be in your museum for a mere 8 grand:

Image

Anyway, Robbin's stated purpose seems to mesh with this forum's and I wonder if he is aware of CF or of Simon? Or does anyone here know anything about Robbin Koefoed Jakobsen?

hoi.polloi
Administrator
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Mon Dec 15, 2014 5:40 am

Never heard of them, but sounds like a good direction. Hopefully.

guivre
Member
Posts: 188
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 9:48 pm
Contact:

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by guivre » Mon Dec 15, 2014 9:59 am

Rational Wiki has this talk page (which you may or may not have seen before this post, but I think is relevant to the discussion because of the date):
Yesterday evening, in a snit of hasty grumpiness, I deleted a narticle authored by bon 31.193.141.239 on this guy. Twice. The second one was a tiny lame attack stub, but the first one resembled this current iteration, somewhat. Is this Robbin Kofoed character at all notable or influential? His site looks like a link farm for Infowars and Natural News. If there is any original content there, it is well hidden. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Which has the date Lux mentioned. Seems like he's popped up out of nowhere or was campaigning aggressively for his site. Hoping for the best. This is a subject I'd really like handled well in contemporary culture.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Robbi ... d_Jakobsen

I have to say, this seems a little much.

smj
Member
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 10:29 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by smj » Mon Dec 15, 2014 4:55 pm

Here's Winsor McCay's 1914 entry in the Jurassic entertainment/ propaganda series...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGXC8gXOPoU

Winsor inspired Disney and may have been the greatest animator of all time we are told...
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0150/ ... cCayPK.pdf

Winsor also made this delightful propaganda cartoon about the Lusitania...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhCWmIu1H_g

Here's a proto-dinosaur childrens book written by one V.C. Vickers. (Vickers Ltd.)...
http://blogoscoped.com/googlebook/

guivre
Member
Posts: 188
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 9:48 pm
Contact:

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by guivre » Wed Dec 17, 2014 11:54 pm

I always thought Gertie was adorable, and really enjoyed McCay's style. I most definitely hadn't looked at it again since the start of this thread. A terrible, terrible oversight on my account.

Of course he was employed by Hearst.

Think about the detail and how stunning this would have looked at the time. The below is just one cel.

Image

ICfreely
Member
Posts: 836
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by ICfreely » Mon Feb 16, 2015 4:56 pm

The following article, replete with sci-fi gibberish, is a perfect example of what’s been passing for ‘science’ for far too long:

How Did Life Begin? Texas Paleontologist Says He's Found The Biological 'Holy Grail'
The Huffington Post | Posted: 11/01/2013 4:28 pm EDT

Scientists know life on Earth began more than 3.8 billion years ago, but exactly how it began has long been an unanswered question.
Now a scientist in Texas believes he has the answer.

“This is bigger than finding any dinosaur,” Dr. Sankar Chatterjee, a professor of geoscience at Texas Tech University and curator of paleontology at the Museum Of Texas Tech University, said in a written statement. “This is what we’ve all searched for--the Holy Grail of science.”

It's long been known that the ancient earth was pummeled by asteroids, meteors and comets--and that these space rocks may have brought water and organic molecules to our planet. But Chatterjee has taken these ideas a step further. He argues that in addition to bringing water and the chemical constituents of life, the space rocks left impact craters that became "crucibles" in which the chemical reactions that ultimately gave rise to living cells took place.

Specifically, Chatterjee believes, meteorites punched giant craters into the Earth and deposited organic materials in them. Then icy comets that crashed into Earth melted, and filled these basins with water. Additional meteorite strikes created volcanically driven geothermal vents in the Earth's crust that heated and stirred the water.
The resulting "primordial soup" mixed the chemicals together, leading to the formation of molecules of ever increasing complexity--and eventually life.

“Segregation and concentration of organic molecules by convective currents took place here, something like the kinds we find on the ocean floor, but still very different," Chatterjee said in the statement. "It was a bizarre and isolated world that would seem like a vision of hell with the foul smells of hydrogen sulfide, methane, nitric oxide and steam that provided life-sustaining energy.”

To arrive at this conclusion, Chatterjee studied sites containing the world's oldest fossils in Greenland, Australia, and South Africa. He said these sites would be good candidates for where life began on Earth.
Has Chatterjee really found the biological Holy grail? Not every scientist is ready to give that claim his or her blessing.

"Whether or not these impactors were the critical ingredient for life remains to be seen, but further investigation of impact sites will nevertheless be informative for understanding Earth's early history," Dr. Jacob Haqq-Misra, an astrobiologist with the Blue Marble Institute of Science, who was not involved in the research, told The Huffington Post in an email.

Chatterjee presented his research Oct. 30 at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America in Denver.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/0 ... 84264.html



Holy Grails, visions of hell & blessings?

Scientists most certainly DON’T KNOW the age of Earth let alone when/how life on Earth began. Neither do theologians for that matter. IMHO such things remain unknown if not unknowable. In the words of Lao Tzu, “To know that you do not know is best. To pretend to know when you do not know is a disease.”

They ‘knew’ the age of the Earth was; 75,000 years in 1779 (Comte du Buffon), 96 million years in 1841(John Phillips FRS), 20-400 million years in 1862 (Lord Kelvin PRS), 18 million years in 1892 (Simon Newcomb), 2-3 billion years in 1895 (John Perry), 20-40 million years in 1897 (Lord Kelvin PRS), 80-100 million years in 1899 (John Joly FRS), 56 million years in 1908 (George Darwin FRS), 1.6-3 billion years in 1927 (Arthur Holmes FRS), 4.5 billion years in 1957 (Clair Cameron Patterson).

They now ‘know’, “The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%).[1][2][3] This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

Although ± 0.05 seems empirically impressive it’s actually nothing more than a clever technique employed to feign precision/reliability. It’s based on arbitrarily selected radiometric dating data & ‘lunar’ samples. I highly recommend “How to Lie With Statistics” by Darrell Huff to anyone interested in the fine art of statistical trickery (http://www.horace.org/blog/wp-content/u ... 4-Huff.pdf) and “Radiometric Dating Methods” by Sean D. Pitman, M.D. for more on the inherent flaws of age dating (http://www.detectingdesign.com/radiometricdating.html).

Charles Lyell’s ancient Earth - ‘index fossils’ within an imaginary uniform ‘geological column’ - is based on circular reasoning. A rock’s age is determined by the fossil found within it & a fossil’s age is determined by the rock it’s found within. Charles Darwin’s ‘Survival of the fittest’ is also based on circular reasoning. A species survives because it’s the fittest & it’s the fittest because it survives. It’s worth noting that Lyell was a lawyer and Darwin was a med school drop-out. Both, of course, were fellows of the Royal Society of London & buried/interred in Westminster Abbey.
For anyone interested in the history/scientific validity of the fossil record, paleontology, evolution and carbon-14/radiometric dating I recommend “In the Minds of Men” by Ian Taylor (http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMindsMen/). He points out many of the tautologies, logical fallacies, asinine assumptions, and outright hoaxes that they’re built upon. Albeit Taylor is admittedly a creationist his erudite analysis is fair and sobering.

Astrobiology is also a pseudoscience based on ‘space exploration’ & ‘satellite data’ hoaxes. The supposed search for extraterrestrial/intelligent signs/origins of life is a joke. The Blue Marble Institute of Science is named after the Apollo 17 hoax for God’s sake. An astrobiologist is a UFOlogist with a degree.

Thus far I’m of the opinion that dinosaurs are 100% real…works of fine art! They were most likely fabricated to substantiate the ‘transmutation/evolution of species’ & ’ancient Earth’ tenets of the Royal Society of London. Let’s not forget that it was one of its high priests (Sir Richard Owen FRS) who in 1841 coined the term ‘dinosaur.’

“Challenge a religious fundamentalist’s blind faith in Holy Scripture by presenting evidence for the human element involved in its productions, and he will charge you with blasphemy or act as if the evidence did not exist. Question tacitly teleological claims promulgated by certain science popularisers by identifying the human factor in the genesis of scientific knowledge, and their response will be remarkably similar.”
--Andreas Sommer - The Tacit Supernaturalism of Popular Science

https://forbiddenhistories.wordpress.co ... r-science/

smj
Member
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 10:29 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by smj » Tue Feb 17, 2015 10:41 pm

Sir Francis Crick, the co-solver of the supposed structure of our supposed hereditary mechanism, dabbled in astrobiology with his pal Orgel. They theorized that the earth was "infected" by extraterrestrial dna... http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/SCBCCP.pdf

Orgel had a pair of rules that were even more ridiculous than Crick's central dogma... http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgel%27s_rule

And yes, dinosaurs are nothing more than an art form...
http://paleoartistry.webs.com/1890s1910s.htm
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duria_An ... iquior.jpg

What we call dinosaurs are artistic representations of mythical creatures dreamed into existence by men like Charles Knight and Rudolph Zallinger...

Charles Knight was the father of paleoart. Stephen Jay Gould said this about him:

"Not since the Lord himself showed his stuff to Ezekiel in the Valley of dry bones had anyone shown such grace and skill in the reconstruction of animals from disarticulated skeletons."
http://www.carnegiemuseums.org/cmag/article.php?id=485

Image


... Zallinger gave us the famous 110 foot mural at the Peabody and that canonical visual representation of evolution, the march of progress...
http://mossandfog.com/2012/05/25/zallin ... -reptiles/
http://www.yale.edu/opa/arc-ybc/v35.n26/story1.html

Image

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bI49Kn4EeOY

ICfreely
Member
Posts: 836
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by ICfreely » Wed Feb 18, 2015 10:34 pm

Great post smj! I loved, in particular, the Crick-astrobiology connection & the Ezekiel quote. Most people, for whatever reason(s), fail to realize that evolution-ancient Earth is as much a religion as creation-young Earth. It’s clear as day to any neutral observer.

anonjedi2
Member
Posts: 726
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:50 am

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by anonjedi2 » Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:41 am

The Lying Stones

In 1726, Johann Beringer of Würzburg found and published details of fossils that he collected on Mount Eibelstadt. These included “lizards in their skin, birds with beaks and eyes, spiders with their webs, and frogs copulating.” Other stones he found contained the Hebrew letters YHVH, for Jehovah.

As the story goes, he was (allegedly) the victim (vicsim?) of a hoax.
Beringer's Lying Stones (Lügensteine) are pieces of limestone carved into the shape of various animals, discovered in 1725 by Professor Johann Bartholomeus Adam Beringer, Dean of the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Würzburg. Beringer believed them to be fossils, and because some of them also bore the name of God in Hebrew, suggested that they might be of divine origin. In fact, he was the victim of a hoax, perpetrated on him by his colleagues ex-Jesuit J. Ignatz Roderick, Professor of Geography and Mathematics, and Johann Georg von Eckhart, privy counselor and university librarian. Upon discovering the truth, Beringer took his hoaxers to court, and the scandal that followed left all three of them in disgrace.

Some of the stones are now on display at the Oxford University Museum, and Teylers Museum in the Netherlands.
There's not much to this story, I just thought it would be a good idea to add it to the collection of hoaxes that pertain to fossils. If this story is true, one must ask:

Exactly how easy is it to fool a scientist, professor, engineer, student, intellect, philosopher, or ANYONE?

The more I understand about hoaxes, the more easy it is to accept and acknowledge that people are easily fooled into believing the most far-fetched stories of our times. If it's possible for two colleagues to fool a respected Professor at a University in the 1700s, it must be a walk in the park for those in power to fool billions of people on this planet today including all anthropology / paleontology University Professors students worldwide. It makes sense now. There doesn't need to be "thousands of people in on it". There are less than 50k paleontologists in the world anyways ... most of them are fully invested and completely fooled. They have dedicated their lives to a fantasy, something that doesn't exist (like dragons, or elves or unicorns), and they are completely oblivious. They have no idea what goes on above their level of access, i.e. Carnegie Institute and higher. They probably are unaware of some of the research on this thread.

This newfound knowledge about the true nature of modern science, especially those "protected sciences" discussed here has really changed my life in a big way and made me look at everything differently now. I am very grateful to have had this experience over the last few years. I feel sharper and more in tune with the nature of the world around me and understanding its nuances. That also leads to a bit less stress in life, which is great.

More info here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beringer%27s_Lying_Stones

Ataraxia
Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 1:15 am

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by Ataraxia » Sat Apr 18, 2015 3:33 am

Some of this is taken from some stuff I posted in another forum, but it’s a look at two very odd stories which have seemingly become combined into one. This was first brought up on page 13 of this thread, but relates to them apparently finding 'the biggest dinosaur ever' in Argentina. Twice no less.

First, from May 2014, various sites tell us of a titanosaur from Argentina, in which they found 150 bones total from 7 dinosaurs.
Then in September 2014, many of these same sites, in the same wording often, tell us of another titanosaur from Argentina, in which they found 145 bones from 2 dinosaurs.
No matter how many sites you look at though, these two finds which are so incredibly similar, never once reference one another, even though they are the two most incredible finds in the last few years, found in the same part of Argentina.

However, what really makes these finds so vitally important (they tell us), is that in both sets of bones, they find a complete femur and humerus, and from finding both of these bones they can accurately predict the size of such a massive dinosaur for the first time in history.

As a reference, here's a picture of the May 2014 articles, showing both femur and humerus (the femur in the rear).
Image

Here's a schematic from the September 2014 articles showing the bones of their discovered dinosaur.
Image

Even more curious, in the video from the May 2014, BBC article, at 1:00 they measure the circumference of their dinosaur's humerus to 79 cm. In the report for the September 2014 find, on page 7 under Body Dimensions, they give the circumference of their humerus to be "785 mm". Essentially identical, but they never reference one another.

However, things get downright absurd when you compare these 3 images together, all referencing the May 2014 humerus (as found here and here for example.)
You have these three people lying alongside the same bone:
Image
Image
Image

I also want to touch on the lead paleontologist Kenneth Lacovara from the September 2014 find.
Heres he's standing beside his humerus in two seperate pictures
Image
Image

These seem to be the same picture, but photoshopped for whatever reason, with his blue shirt colored purple.
For instance, look at the similarities. Look especially at the sleeve above the wrist, you can see the exact same folds in the cloth. You can see the same folds elsewhere, though some have been smoothed out as well:
Image

And here you can especially notice the straight edge of a copy-paste as they changed his hand angle.
Image

Knapsack
Member
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 12:47 am

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by Knapsack » Wed May 06, 2015 1:21 am

More Dinosaur-Bird "Science"

Here's a rather meager article from the BBC about two 130 million year old bird fossils, reportedly found in China, which "push back the branching-out of this evolutionary group by at least five million years." In addition to the usual "artist's interpretation," we're treated to photos of the pair of skeletons.

Image

Upon inspection, you may notice that these two skeletons look very similar. Upon closer inspection, you'll see that we are actually looking at two versions of the same skeleton (or two photoshop variations of the same "fossil"). This becomes readily apparent if we horizontally flip the righthand image.

Image

Probable photoshop snakery aside, does it seem even remotely possible that these images show the fossilized remains of a creature that bit the dust 130 million years ago? It looks to me like a bird that was run over by a car three weeks ago! How could all of the plumage (and what looks like other soft tissue) survive for 130 million years?

Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-32596726

Seneca
Member
Posts: 458
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm
Contact:

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by Seneca » Wed May 06, 2015 10:28 am

On the following page the left picture is identified as "Main slab", and the right picture as "counter slab".
So they have to be similar.

But shouldn't the cracks in the stones also be similar?

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/15042 ... 87_F1.html

anonjedi2
Member
Posts: 726
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:50 am

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by anonjedi2 » Fri May 15, 2015 10:15 pm

Chicken grows face of dinosaur

Image
A chicken embryo with a dinosaur-like snout instead of a beak has been developed by scientists.
:rolleyes:

This ridiculous propaganda attempts to further cement the fake dinosaur/bird/evolution connection by theorizing how the beak evolved over time. I don't have too much to say, but figured I should share it here in the dinosaur thread. The audacity of the article speaks for itself. My favorite parts:
They found that birds have a unique cluster of genes related to facial development, which the non-beaked creatures lacked.

When they silenced these genes, the beak structure reverted back to its ancestral state. So too did the palatal bone in the roof of the mouth.


To make this genetic tweak, Bhullar and his colleagues isolated the proteins that would have gone on to develop beaks. Then they suppressed them using tiny beads coated with an inhibiting substance.

When their skeletons started to develop inside the eggs, these animals had short, rounded bones instead of elongated, fused beaks that bird skeletons have.

"By affecting this early protein you are actually altering gene expression," added Bhullar.
That simple, huh? Okay! If you say so! Any chance the public can observe this first hand and up close to see for ourselves? :P
The shift from snouts to beaks happened well into the evolution of birds, 40-50 million years after Archaeopteryx, says Benton.
As if scientists have any clue whatsoever how to measure such things! What a joke! :puke:

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150512 ... f-dinosaur

ICfreely
Member
Posts: 836
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread post by ICfreely » Tue May 19, 2015 11:49 pm

Archaeopteryx (aka ‘The Piltdown Chicken’) is the ‘Holy Grail’ of the evolution/dinosaur hoaxes.

In addition to coining the term ‘Dinosauria,’ Sir Richard Owen’s “…monograph on Archaeopteryx (1863), the long-tailed, toothed bird from the Bavarian lithographic stone, is also an epoch-making work.”(1) Epoch making Indeed! Four years after the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species, Sir Richard “…bought the Archaeopteryx fossil for the British Museum. It fulfilled Darwin's prediction that a proto-bird with unfused wing fingers would be found, although Owen described it unequivocally as a bird.”(2) However, “Owen was feared and even hated by some contemporaries such as Thomas Henry Huxley. This conflict was brought to a head when Owen rejected the theory of evolution by natural selection as proposed by Darwin”(3)

Right from the start Huxley & Darwin were dead set on convincing us we're mentally & morally no different than wild animals, lacking any sort of uniqueness, and attacked anyone who didn’t share their beliefs. Parallels could be drawn with popularizers of the heliocentric hypothesis who maintain that there’s nothing special about Earth’s place in ‘space' (http://kids.britannica.com/comptons/art ... 3800/Earth).

The combative Thomas Henry Huxley used his March 1858 Royal Institution lecture to deny Owen's claim and affirmed that structurally, gorillas are as close to humans as they are to baboons. He believed that the "mental & moral faculties are essentially... the same kind in animals & ourselves". This was a clear denial of Owen's claim for human uniqueness, given at the same venue… Darwin commented that "I used to be ashamed of hating him so much, but now I will carefully cherish my hatred & contempt to the last days of my life."(4)

Anyhow, Huxley & Darwin sided with Gideon Mantell FRS of Iguanadon fame. His fascination with Mary Anning prompted his pursuit of the ‘scientific study of dinosaurs.’ He apparently found some teeth in 1822. William Buckland FRS and Georges Cuvier thought the teeth belonged to fish or rhinoceri respectively. According to Charles Lyell FRS, Cuvier later changed his mind & thought the teeth belonged to 'something quite different.' In time “…Mantell had acquired enough fossil evidence to show that the dinosaur's forelimbs were much shorter than its hind legs, therefore proving they were not built like a mammal as claimed by Sir Richard Owen. Mantell went on to demonstrate that fossil vertebrae, which Owen had attributed to a variety of different species, all belonged to Iguanodon. He also named a new genus of dinosaur called Hylaeosaurus and as a result became an authority on prehistoric reptiles.”(5) Mantell’s initial name for the ‘new species’ was 'Iguana-saurus.' Upon the advice of his friend, William Daniel Conybeare FRS who thought Iguanadon sounded better, he changed it.

It’s worth noting that Charles Darwin’s ‘modern’ theory of evolution was foreshadowed in his grandfather’s (Erasmus Darwin) book Zoonomia (1794-1796) and reinforced in T.H. Huxley’s grandson’s (Julian Huxley) book Evolution: The Modern Synthesis (1942).

The ancient Earth dogma is the backbone of evolution & heliocentricity. Dinosaurs are nothing more than bait to lure kids into the holy trinity of modern pseudoscience. Suffice it to say; dinosaurs, evolution, ancient Earth and heliocentricity have absolutely nothing to do with science and everything to do with establishing a demoralizing/dehumanizing one-world religion. Sadly, most people have bought into it.

Charles Darwin’s son (Sir George Howard Darwin FRS) formulated the fission theory of Moon formation. His grandson (Sir Charles Galton Darwin FRS) worked on the Manhattan Project & advocated population control in his 1952 book The Next Million Years. His great-grandson (George Pember Darwin) married T.H. Huxley’s great-granddaughter (Angela Huxley). His great-great-grandson (Matthew H.D. Chapman) is a writer, film director, journalist and co-founder of Science Debate who advocates atheism & teaching evolution. “Several of the supporters of Science Debate joined the Obama administration, including Presidential Science Advisor John Holdren. The organization continues to advocate for more discussion of science in public life. Matthew Chapman remains its President.”(6) Matthew’s grandfather (Sydney Chapman) was the noted physicist/astronomer responsible for early research on the nature of the ozone layer.

“The [Darwin-Wedgewood] family contained at least ten Fellows of the Royal Society and several artists and poets (including the composer Ralph Vaughan Williams). The Wedgwoods were extremely important in British industry in the west Midlands. As Quakers, they were all anti-slavery, and so were the Darwins. The families were also closely related to the banking family of Francis Galton.”(7)

“The Huxley family is an English family. Members of the family had top careers in science, medicine, art, and literature. Some family members were also high level public servants in the United Kingdom.”(8)

We have one big crappy family of inbred hoaxters to thank for the dino-evol-usion!



1- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Ow ... _dinosaurs
2- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Ow ... _evolution
3- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Owen
4- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Ow ... _evolution
5- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideon_Mantell#Recognition
6- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Chapman_(author)
7- http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin ... ood_family
8- http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huxley_family

Post Reply