"I fought against it as hard as I could.” The Systemic Bias Against Scientific Evidence Disputing Convential "Facts"
In what branch of science would it be acceptable to deny the TRUTH; to fight against the evidence and conclusions based on evidence – just because the evidence contradicts cherished assumptions? No true scientist should ever do that. No branch of science should act like a religion in denial of facts to support beliefs.
I see it all the time in archeology, especially Egyptology. There is an official version of events (despite piles of evidence contradicting it) that the pyramids at Giza and the Sphinx were all built around 2500 B.C. Evidence shows these monuments are not 4,500 years old, but at least 12,000 years old… or older… But “the professionals” in this field “know” certain things including timing even when they admit there is a complete absence of evidence to support their timing.
In a recent article describing the official cover-up of evidence of pole shifts and of very ancient civilizations destroyed by the last pole shift around 13,000 years ago (recently published in Nexus Magazine)
I included a section on Zahi Hawass, the former Minister of Egyptian Antiquities and professional liar who is on record saying he doesn’t believe in the results of radar, genetic testing, or carbon-dating (when they go against the “professional” mainstream party line on Egyptian civilization…
The same type of bias against the age of civilizations or the rapid transit of the poles seems to be powered by both universities and the hand that feeds them grant money – the government – throughout many branches of science including archeology and geology… But the article I quoted today shows bias in the field of biology – and specifically regarding evolution.
Recent evidence shows there was an explosion of new species all at once over 100,000 years ago, including humans and many types of animals. This would be expected once you accept that cycles of catastrophic pole shifts devastate the surface of the Earth and kill most surface life about every 12,900 years. This branching out of surviving species happens to varying extents after every pole shift catastrophe.
In the aftermath, the survivors suddenly repopulate an almost emptied world and small populations spread into countless niche environments that favor certain mutations and adaptations over others. One species can quickly branch out into several distinct varieties, in what is now known as quantum evolution. This theory became mainstream in 1972, but there is still heavy bias against very slow and gradual evolution over millions of years of stability.
Hence the quote in the title from one of the biased scientists encountering support of a very sudden appearance of many new species just over 100,000 years ago – probably after a massive pole shift suspected of being more devastating than most around 104,000 years ago: “This conclusion is very surprising and I fought against it as hard as I could.” Scientists are supposed to embrace new evidence – progress in understanding – not fight against it. But it is both human nature (to cling to old beliefs, even when evidence contradicts them) and governments also work to make sure the public is largely unaware of the periodic cycle of catastrophic pole shifts (despite the evidence they have or the preparations they have made.)
“In a massive genetic study, senior research associate at the Program for the Human Environment at Rockefeller University Mark Stoeckle and University of Basel geneticist David Thaler discovered that virtually 90 percent of all animals on Earth appeared at right around the same time. More specifically, they found out that 9 out of 10 animal species on the planet came to being at the same time as [modern] humans did some 100,000 [to 200,000] years ago. “This conclusion is very surprising,” says Thaler, “and I fought against it as hard as I could.”
Pole Shift: Evidence Will Not Be Silenced
.
.
.
Anyone can join.
Anyone can contribute.
Anyone can become informed about their world.
"United We Stand" Click Here To Create Your Personal Citizen Journalist Account Today, Be Sure To Invite Your Friends.
Please Help Support BeforeitsNews by trying our Natural Health Products below!
Order by Phone at 888-809-8385 or online at https://mitocopper.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomic.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomics.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Humic & Fulvic Trace Minerals Complex - Nature's most important supplement! Vivid Dreams again!
HNEX HydroNano EXtracellular Water - Improve immune system health and reduce inflammation.
Ultimate Clinical Potency Curcumin - Natural pain relief, reduce inflammation and so much more.
MitoCopper - Bioavailable Copper destroys pathogens and gives you more energy. (See Blood Video)
Oxy Powder - Natural Colon Cleanser! Cleans out toxic buildup with oxygen!
Nascent Iodine - Promotes detoxification, mental focus and thyroid health.
Smart Meter Cover - Reduces Smart Meter radiation by 96%! (See Video).
Pole shift…the term is, in itself meaningless. WTF kTYPE of pole shift is it, to which you refer? Magnetic, or, physical? I hoped you were talking about magnetic pole shifts, but, then, I saw 12,900 years and, catastrophic surface damage…
The Pyramids, I fully agree, are much older than 4,500 years, and, they, (the Great Pyramid) are extremely accurately lined up with the true North physical pole, within one-half of one degree. Unless, the Great Pyramid is younger than the last physical pole shift, which, I think is not likely, I think it is far older than 12,000 years, I don’t necessarily accept the idea of physical pole shifts, as, valid. Surely, the planet does not flip, and, then, right itself, and, assume, the EXACT ,same position, attitude, alignment, axis, what have you, in relation, to its original placement…
We have accurate Scientific population growth models. How could there be a population of only 300M – 2000 yrs ago with 10,000 previous years of reproduction? Time to rethink your assumptions…………