The Falsification of History: Our Distorted Reality (10 page)

Do we detect shades of the Soviet Union in the 20th century, when so-called dissident scientists there began speaking out against the diktats and manufactured reality of Stalin’s regime?

If all the preceding assertions are true, this all begs the question, ‘what is the point of the deception’?
 
If someone goes to all that trouble to make sure we believe something that is not and cannot be proven, there must be a reason for it and a hidden agenda behind it.
 
Indeed, this simple test can be applied to anything but in this case the overwhelmingly obvious conclusion is that it is done in order to deceive and therefore impose and maintain control by taking advantage of the lack of knowledge of the real truth of our origins and purpose as a species.

Fossil records constitute the primary source for the evolutionists in searching for evidence for the theory of evolution.
 
The fossil records certainly contain the remains of past human beings but when these are examined objectively, it may be seen that the records themselves are in no way in favour of evolutionary theory, but rather against it, contrary to the assertions of the evolutionists.
 
However, since these fossils are incorrectly portrayed by the evolutionists and presented for public opinion with the intent of fulfilling pre-conceived ideas; many people are fooled into incorrectly believing that the fossil records actually verify the theory of evolution.

The evolutionists disingenuously use the fact that findings of fossil records are open to many different interpretations, to their own advantage and as ‘proof’ of their own assertions.
 
The discovered fossils are usually not sufficient to make a firm analysis, but are generally comprised of incomplete and fragmented bone pieces.
 
This is why it is so simple for them to distort the available data and use them fraudulently to portray the desired objectives.

Belief in the theory of evolution has come to be seen as almost a life-style choice, a mode of thinking, even an ideology rather than just simply a theory like any other by its evangelical defenders who do not deem it necessary to take steps to prevent the distorting of data or even the committing of more serious, deliberate forgeries.
  
Indeed, extremist advocates of evolutionary ideology do not hesitate to undertake any kind of distortion necessary in order to interpret the fossil records in favour of evolutionary theory.
 
It is a classical scientific mistake to build any kind of theoretical framework from the basis of an incorrect initial assumption and yet I believe that this fundamental ‘mistake’ is made time after time by the proponents of evolutionary theory.

"Theory shapes the way we think about, even perceive, data… We are unaware of many of our assumptions.
 
In the course of rethinking my ideas about human evolution, I have changed somewhat as a scientist.
 
I am aware of the prevalence of implicit assumptions and try harder to dig them out of my own thinking.
 
Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual data… I am more sombre than I once was about what the unwritten past can tell us."
 
David Pilbeam, anthropologist, Harvard University.

It is true that ideological expectations can and do influence the interpretation of any given data set and the fact that fossil records are open to many different interpretations raises doubts on the reliability of the whole science of paleo-anthropology which is mostly under the control of the evolutionists.
 
Certain prejudices and expectations will undoubtedly have an impact on the veracity of data extrapolation.

“…We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extra-sensory perception or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful anything is possible - and where the ardent believer is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time.”
 
Sir Solly Zuckerman, palaeontologist at Birmingham University, England.

Since fossil records are usually unorganised and incomplete, the estimations based on them are inevitably totally speculative.
 
As a matter of fact, the reconstructions (drawings or models) made by evolutionists based on the fossil remains are often treated in a speculative way in consort with the evolutionary theory.
 
Since most people are more easily influenced by visual rather than written data, the aim of evolutionists is to entice them to believe that these reconstructed creatures have really existed in the past. 

For this reason alone, the reconstructions of fossils and skulls are always designed to meet the needs of the evolutionary theory.
 
Evolutionist researchers often set out from a single tooth, a mandibular fragment or even a tiny bone of the arm, draw semi-human-like imaginary creatures and then present these to the public sensationally as a link in the evolution of man.
 
These drawings and reconstructions have indeed played an important role in the visualisation of the ‘primitive man’ image in the minds of people.

Reconstructions based on the bone remains can only reveal the general characteristics of the object at hand.
 
Yet, the real defining details are soft tissues often muscles or tendons that do not leave an impression in the rocks as they decay too rapidly.
 
Therefore, with the speculative interpretation of the soft tissues, the reconstructed drawing or model becomes totally dependent upon the imagination of the person constructing it.
 

“To attempt to restore the soft parts is an even more hazardous undertaking.
 
The lips, the eyes, the ears, and the nasal tip, leave no clues on the underlying bony parts.
 
You can with equal facility, model on a Neanderthaloid skull the features of a chimpanzee or the lineaments of a philosopher.
 
These alleged restorations of ancient types of a man have very little if any scientific value and are likely only to mislead the public…
 
So put not your trust in reconstructions.”
 
Ernst A. Hooten, Harvard University.

Indeed, evolutionists invent such ridiculous stories that they even ascribe different faces to the same skull.
 
For example, three different reconstructed drawings made for the fossil named Australopithecus robustus, is a famous example of such a forgery.  

A group of evolutionists who could not find any substantial evidence in the fossil records to support their at best, tenuous beliefs, actually decided to create their own evidence themselves.
 
Some of these studies were even included in text books under titles such as ‘evolution conspiracies’ and this is probably a good clue to the fact that the theory of evolution is an ideology or a life philosophy that has to be contrived to be kept alive by considerable effort.

A well-known doctor and amateur palaeontologist, Charles Dawson announced in 1912 that he had found a jaw bone and a cranial fragment in a pit in Piltdown, Sussex, England. Despite the fact that the jaw bone was ape-like, the teeth and the skull were similar to a human's.
 
These specimens were designated by science as ‘Piltdown Man’, determined to be dated to half a million years ago and depicted as absolute ‘proof’ of the evolution of man for more than 40 years.
 
Many scientific articles were written about the artefacts, many interpretations and drawings were made and it was presented as important evidence and taught as undeniable proof of the macro-evolution of mankind. 

The discovery of ‘Piltdown-man’ engendered massive enthusiasm in paleo-anthropological circles and gave birth to many new debates which automatically assumed that evolution was absolute fact.
 
For example, the famous English anthropologist, G. E. Smith pondered... “Did the brain or body of man evolve first?”

In 1949, Kenneth Oakley from the palaeontology department of the British Museum in London devised the ‘fluorine test’ to determine the date of fossils.
 
When the test was performed on the Piltdown-man fossil, the subsequent result was shocking.
 
It was proved conclusively that the jaw-bone of Piltdown-man contained no fluorine and this therefore indicated that the bone was underground no more than a relatively few short years and was therefore obviously a fraud.
 
In addition, the skull itself contained a small amount of fluorine, enough to determine that it was a few thousand years old, only.  It was also proved by the tests that the jaw-bone and the skull came from two entirely separate creatures and time-periods and must therefore be a deliberate hoax.
 

“The latest chronological researches made with the fluorine method revealed that the [Piltdown] skull was only a few thousand years old.
 
It was manifest that the teeth in the jaw bone belonging to an orang-utan were worn out artificially and the primitive tools found next to the fossils were simple imitations sharpened by steel devices.”
 
Kenneth Oakley, palaeontologist, the British Museum, London.

Alongside these fossils were found some extinct elephant fossils and some tool remains made out of the bones of the same elephant species.
 
These elephant fossils were used in the dating of the skull and in the tests it was understood that these elephant fossils were indeed very ancient.
 
However, the jaw bone and the skull were much more recent than the elephant fossils.
 
What then was the significance of these facts?
 
It was surmised that the Piltdown ivory fossil had probably been found in Africa and then deliberately placed in the Piltdown site to give the impression that the false skull was as old as the elephant fossil in order to mislead.
  
As the researchers studied the other animal fossils found in the same region in more depth, they found that these were also placed there with the deliberate intention of deception and the Piltdown bone tool was eventually discovered to be an elephant fossil shaped with a steel knife. 

However, the hoax could still be regarded as a raging success by the evolutionists in as much as it had propagandised the population for almost half a century into a definitive belief of evolutionary myth and the Elite know very well that once any beliefs become deeply entrenched in the human psyche then even subsequent absolute proof to the contrary will not necessarily remove or diminish them.

Piltdown man skull

This fake fossil that occupied the evolutionist circles for a many years, demonstrates the lengths to which those who desire to prove the theory of evolution at all costs are prepared to go.
 
Why would this be?
 
Why would anyone fake scientific evidence?
 
I suggest that it is done (in this case at least) to provide hard evidence of the proof of evolutionary theory in the absence of any other real or tangible facts that would verify it.
 
This in itself speaks volumes to my mind.

After the detailed analysis completed by Kenneth Oakley, William le Gros Clark and J. S. Weiner, this forgery was eventually made public in 1953.
 
The skull was discovered to be human and was a mere 500 years old and the jaw-bone was from a recently deceased ape.
 
The teeth had been specially arranged and added separately to the jaw and the tooth sockets were set in such a way as to resemble those of a human.
 
All these individual elements were then deceptively stained with potassium-dichromate to give them the false appearance of great age.
 
These stains disappeared when the skull was dipped in acid.
 

There was also much evidence of artificial abrasion that in hindsight was so obvious that it begged the question; how had it escaped the notice of experienced palaeontologists for forty years?
  
Sir Solly Zuckerman’s view was…