Alternative Researchers

The term is one commonly used by serious non-credentialed inquirers to distinguish themselves from academic historians and academic scientists, all of whom have achieved their status by way of acquiring a diploma from some institute of higher learning.  The term “alternative research,” does not indicate much to the average person on the street, but there is an increasing number of people who can distinguish that it means quite a lot.

To this audience the term indicates that the inquirer whose work they’re going to read or listen to at a conference is someone who is not bashful about stepping on toes, who calls a spade a spade, whose career does not depend on toeing some line and playing it safe.

To the “credentialed inquirer” (an academic) the term “aternative researcher” means someone who has few if any standards, has not accrued any standing, who has not learned how to think critically, and who is close to being a snake oil salesman.  OUCH!

One has only to look at the history of science to see that it is replete with many early researchers who would today be considered dabblers – mere “researchers”.  Some point to Einstein himself as a dabbler, since he was working in the Swiss Patent Office at the time he developed his Theory of Relativity.  But Einstein is not an appropriate example of a non-credentialed inquirer, because he had only taken the job as a stop-gap measure.  He had attended university and was already known a little bit in the academic world.

Benjamin Franklin would be a more appropriate example of a non-credentialed inquirer. He had little formal education and but had a fervent interest in multiple areas of inquiry and – eventually – a wide circle of influential people in science as an audience.  At that time, evidently, the wall between the two types of researchers had not yet formed.

“Alternative” implies “pseudo” to credentialed scientists, it seems, and certainly suggests outside of science.  It is difficult to address history or archaeology in this present essay, since both of them use so much interpretation that is not quantified, leading to two fields that are so rife with personal prejudice, subjectivity and belief system as to render them both little more than compendia of opinions.  A close friend who is degreed in history amazed me with assertions that everyone is allowed to have an opinion, and that no opinion is considered true above any others.  As an engineer, to hear that even FACTS are debatable and only opinion – well you can imagine my reaction…  I DO ask that friend if 2+2=4 is just an opinion.  So far no answer…

Therefore, here I am referring only to the following scientists – geologists, physicists, medical doctors and researchers, chemists, meteorologists, biologists, and astronomers (though I am – when I use the term “credentialed inquirer.”  Note the missing psychologists, archaeologists, Egyptologists, science historians, anthropologists,  I only barely include astronomers, since so much of their idas can never be tested empircally, so how can we know if what they think is fact or not?  It is not that the excluded ones are not credentialed, nor is it that they are not doing research.  But, like they do to alternate researchers, it is clear to me that those fields draw unfounded and speculative conclusions based on vague nothings that they have built up into interactive larger nothings.  Arkies can find one artifact buried in a site (as often as not in a grave) and wax poetic about what the site’s ancient inhabitants were like, what they thought, what they believed, what their social structures were like, what their marriage ceremonies were about – all SORTS of things that do not bear on the artifact itself at all.


That is not to say that the work of archeologists and historians are beneath either of the groups being addressed here, but that their fields are different from scientific style inquiry.  Though archeology uses scientific tests in its research, those tests are continually vetted and measured against qualitative timelines that are used as a court of last resort, which in their history they have used to literally discard physical evidence and laboratory results that do not agree with what their pre-conceived notions of chromnology. In other words, the NON-lab-tested timelines are used to say whether the C14 dates are correct.  And what happens if the C14 dates don’t match up?  The lab results are discarded, with the assertion of contamination of the sample(proof of such not required).  It happens more than anyone outside would believe.  I read once, about 30 years ago, that 85% of all Carbon 14 dates are discarded by the client scientists – not the labs.  It was in a footnote, with source, but I lost the book and footnote long ago.  Is it possibly that high?  I wouldn’t think so, but even 8.5% is to me too many.  Data is data.  Measured things ARE what they measure.  And ALL data should be specifically included – or noted and given a solid reason to be excluded.  (THIS is almost never done, to the shame of scientists everywhere who allow and enable such practices.)

In real science (supposedly) data drives the debate, lab results being of high standing, and rejecting lab results out of hand is considered – and absolutely should be – fudging the data.  Within their acruacy/uncertainty range, C14 and other dating methods are ACCURATE.  Archaeologists tend to point at credentialed inquirers and accuse them of fraud (which is a form of fudging the data), all the while doing it themselves and claiming the right to do so.  After all, they know if a lab date is correct; if it matches closely with what they expect, then it is allowed, and if it doesn’t it must be tainted and must be rejected.  They turn science-as-quantification on its head.

When the opinions and non-quantifiable information are the measuring stick to accept measured data or not, there really can be no serious reason to accept archaeologists (yet) as scientists, even if they do have credentials.  The fudging in their field suggests – nay, demands – that credentials themselves might need to be reconsidered.  So, in this present observation, I have chosen to include archeologists with historians, as opinionarians, and leave them out of it.  “It” being science.

That is not to assert that no academic scientists or non-credentialed inquirers are without opinions or pre-conceptions.  Far from it.  And it is also true that non-credentialed inquirers do not have a standard yet set up by which to vet their own kind or the work they do.  Without such a process, as one would expect, the level of work done by non- credentialed inquirers has a higher level of quality variation than credentialed inquirers.  But given the state of archaeology, that has to be said with fingers crossed behind the back.

Some day, non-credentialed inquirers may have (and should have) a system by which to objectively assess the consistent application of field procedures and methods of inquiry by members of their class.  They do not have such a mechanism now.  God forbid they ever do, based on the inefficiencies and iniquities in the peer-review process.  Some people put serious thought into how to “fix” the peer-review process, because it clearly doesn’t work well.  In far too many cases it doesn’t weed out faked research.  In other cases, cliques circle-jerk the journals by buddying it up and giving easy passes to their friends in their fields.  Faked and fudged data (“manipulated” is the over-polite term they use) has become a major problem in science.  But scientists when challenged by outsiders on such common bad practices have in many cases circled the wagons and deny that anything is wrong.  Some suggest that posting papers online in an open-source way would be a better means of vetting research.  I happen to agree with the latter.  Something is crooked in Denmark, and some day Birnam Wood may be seen storming the castle gates of academia.

(I can’t COUNT the number of really BAD journal papers I’ve read in my own days and nights of researching things.  The number is certainly in the hundreds.  Conclusions are drawn that are wholly out of proportion to the evidence presented, yet reviewers and editors somehow give the thumbs-up to such passages.  I won’t even go into how MANY papers are not original science, either, but just compendiums or summaries of other people’s work.  They are like a middle ground between science papers and popular magazine articles.  It boggles my mind that such papers can be called science.)

Even among credentialed inquirers (scientists) the interpretation of a particular body of inquiry can vary, sometimes widely.  For example there are now SIX different “explanations” for the Libyan Desert Glass.  Each researcher of each of those six is fairly certain that he/she has the right answer or is very close to finding it.  Otherwise they would not have published in journals.  But if any one of them is correct, then the other five must be wrong.  Yet there are their papers in those journals – FIVE wrong research papers (at a minimum)!

But isn’t “wrong” the reason that credentialed researchers and journals reject the non-credentialed researchers and their work?  If wrong is the criteria, take at least five groups of credentials away.

One would expect the same to be true in non-credentialed inquiry as well.  The holy grail, the quest, of both groups almost certainly should be to discover the facts of the matter under consideration, so that the those facts can be used as a solid basis for future inquiry.  One might also mention possible applications in industry, transportation and “the real world”.

To begin, then, if we address “alternative research,” we need to understand that “alternative” implies outside of science, as in non-orthodox.  The term “research” is reasonable, since it implies the very process of inquiry – and certainly alternative researchers do that, in their own way.  I do not need to explain that all the “-ologies” are so named because they are themselves “the study of” that subset of the universe that we wish to know about.


When scientists assert that their current conclusions constitute actual knowledge, I can show one good example of science in which that cannot BE the case. There are currently SIX opposing “explanations” for how Libyan Desert Glass could have been formed.  Yet, how can ANY of the understandings of any of the involved papers and groups be understood as knowledge?  If one of the six is correct, the others must be wrong.  Yet all of the researchers were scientists!  Shouldn’t they all come up with the same – correct – understanding?  If they didn’t, why not?  How can any the conclusions in their papers be knowledge, when five (or six!) of the “explanations are going to one day be found to be wrong?

(BTW, the early century or so of the study of electricity was chaotic, too, with all sorts of tentative understandings eventually (very eventually) evolving into a solid compendium of knowledge.

At the same time, even electricity and its ability to produce motive power – the physical power to MOVE things – is still a great unknown.  HOW does an electron – even billions of them – moving from one atom into another create a motive force?


Add in gravity to this discussion…  Newton said this about the concept of “force at a distance”:

[Writing in 19693 to his friend Richard Bentley]

   You sometimes speak of gravity as essential & inherent to matter; pray do not ascribe that notion to me, for ye cause of gravity is what I do not pretend to know, & therefore would take more time to consider of it…  Tis unconceivable that inanimate brute matter should (without ye mediation of something else wch is not material) operate upon & affect other matter wthout mutual contact; as it must if gravitation in the sense of Epicurus be essential & inherent in it. And this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe innate gravity to me.

That gravity should be innate inherent & essential to matter so yt one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum wthout the mediation of any thing else by & through wch their action or force may be conveyed from one to another is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters any competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it.


This is one of the most stunning passages in the history of science.  Newton essentially threw his hands up and said,


Newton never DID figure out what gravity came from.  And no one else ever has, either.  If someone claims to have such knowledge, you know you have a fool before you.  Scientists wrestled with this problem up to about the middle 1800s and then gave up.  No one is working on it now.  Ignorance of what gravity is, however, hasn’t stopped any of us from using gravity – for everything from walking, to staying on the planet Earth, from designing roller coasters, to overcoming it with airfoil wings that can allow human flight, to spitting in a spittoon, and a gazillion other ways.  We don’t have to know WHY gravity works, as long as we have derived ways of USING it.

Though the scientists have struck out on gravity and electricity and why they work as the do, the others – the practical-minded mass of humanity still utilizes both every day, sometimes hundreds or thousands of times every day.


Science, in toto, is the “study of” our universe, though it does not carry the linguistic ending its subsets do.  Any serious inquiry into our universe is real, no matter the dispute over credentials, training in thinking methods or conclusions drawn from such inquiry.  Inquiry is an attempt to move forward our understanding.  Any inquiry by its very nature must be an acknowledgement that the knowledge is incomplete in that certain area.  I assert here that efforts to block or diminish the ability of others to inquire are in actuality non-science – and non-sense.  I include in that all efforts by credentialed inquirers to discount and/or snub the work of non-credentialed inquirers.

Oh, let me tell you, there are lots of times I don’t agree with what some alternative researcher has concluded – probably the majority of the time, in fact!  But in the hundreds of journal papers I’ve read in the last several years, I’ve cringed at the conclusions of the orthodoxy, too.  Nearly every one of them interprets their data through the lens of the orthodoxy, and isn’t bashful about doing that, either.

But here is where it gets dicey for them…  If their current paradigm is wrong, then any interpretation using that paradigm is certainly wrong.  And, as Thomas Kuhn in his Revolutions in Science paper in 1962 discussed, paradigms are not permanent things but often get overthrown, when better observation or measuring techniques arise and give better data.


Let’s throw in Göbekli Tepe here, too.  Presently the site in south central Turkey is fully acknowledged to be 12,000 years old.  And right up until that date was solidified, all archaeologists stated as fact that human civilization did not start until about 2,000 years later.  Obviously, now that 10,000 year date is wrong and was wrong, all those years up to Göblekli Tepe’s dating was laid out.  Folks, this is a big deal.  2,000 years wrong.  The entire orthodoxy of archaeology and anthropology was wrong for well over one hundred years.  And what did the alternative researchers argue for as long as they’ve looked into the age of civilization?  That civilization is considerably older than the orthodoxy was telling us.  When Posnansky long ago told the world that Tiahuanaco was 12,000 years old, they all laughed at him.  Why?  Because civilization was only 10,000 years old – no place could be 12,000 years old!  And now what do they say about Posnansky?  Nothing.  How did Posnansky arrive at his 12,000 year date?  By looking at the astronomical alignments and seeing that they almost but not quite pointed to certain stellar alignments.  Posnansky mathematically adjusted those alignments slightly, to line up some time in the past, and by the amount of the adjustments, he was able to line them all up, but that date was 12,000 years ago.

At the present time, such adjustments are made all the time, with astronomers telling us that Stonehenge or some other megalithic site was aligned to the rising or setting sun on the equinox or solstice, X number of years in the past.  It is called archaeoastronomy, and it is commonly used.  But at least until Göbekli Tepe came along, they still ignored Posnansky’s dating of Tiahuanaco.  Though others are allowed to project the alignments to stars back X number of years, Posnansky is not credited with putting archaeoastronomy on the map.  Nor is his 12,000 year date accepted.  YET.  He wasn’t correct, because they thought – and still think – that he couldn’t be correct.  If you or I used such reasoning we’d be laughed out of a bar, much less the halls of academia.

And here is the kicker about Göbekli Tepe – the really big story of the site’s architecture:

<b>That level of architecture did not get developed in Göbekli Tepe, nor at 12,000 years ago.</b>  <i>Everybody is missing this very important point.</i> Such sophistication and technical expertise does not spring up out of nomadic hunter-gatherers suddenly deciding to make them a big temple, with animals on the columns.  Such technical skill must be accrued over time, over generations and generations, one technical step at a time.  Certainly hunter-gatherers don’t go around with developed but unused stone-working skills until the time they decide that they need to settle down in one place.  To develop them means to practice them – and this means there are other, earlier, temples and edifices – ones that have not been found yet.

Such an idea as “instant temple builders” is ludicrous.  It is like saying that the Bushmen of Africa of 200 years ago could just stop what they were doing – hunting and gathering – and build the Temple at Delphi.  Is that a ludicrous idea?  Of course it is.  But right now that is the forming paradigm about Göbekli Tepe – that they went straight from hunting and gathering and built them a temple.  No learning curve.  No centuries-long development of tools for working stone or architectural design.  The mind recoils at such silly simplistic concepts.  That researchers are not capable of taking more than one mental baby step at a time saddens me to no end.  Göbekli Tepe MUST suggest to them an earlier developmental period; anything else is and cannot BE science.

Gobekli Tepe was not the start of building temples.  It was the end of a period of development that died out when Göbekli Tepe was intentionally buried about 10,000 years ago (as the story goes right now).  The skills required to build such temples and columns died with that burial and was not rediscovered for thousands of years.  (DO you know ho much more complicated it becomes to make a squared column when carved animals are made from the same big stone?  Their skill level at least rivaled the Greeks.  And how long do we acknowledge that the development that led to Delphi took?  Since the time of Sumer, at least.  And the time span between the two was how long?  About 2,000 years.

So, should we expect that the technical skills at Göbekli Tepe also took about 2,000 years to develop?  If not, why not?  If in the future we find out that it was 2,000 years, then the current paradigm of civilization being 12,000 years old will be turned on its head again.


Just how many paradigms does it take to get it right?  And with only earlier paradigms will be – by definition – wrong.  And this is not the alternative researchers being wrong.  This is the orthodox, academic science being wrong.

So, it is obvious that being wrong cannot be even part of rejecting someone’s research or conclusions.  It can’t be, not when in time the majority of paradigms will turn out to be wrong.


Before we leave off, let’s look at three other wrong paradigms that  South America and Africa seemed to “fit” together amazingly well, and he set out to see if that idea would “hold water”.  Well, long story short, he did, but the geologists 100 years ago – who had never themselves looked into the concept – laughed him out of conferences one of those who looked at the map and wondered how those two continents cold fit together so well.  I recall even thinking that it sure wasn’t very far across the Atlantic Ocean at that point!  So what was the wrong paradigm?  That the continents are fixed and immutable.  This was wrong on a scale almost on the level of the Sun orbiting the Earth.


The second wrong paradigm was the one that said that during the ice ages no ice dams could fail and cause the Scablands in the American northwestern plains.  Harlan Bretz, like Alfred Wegner, was told where to stick his idea.  Geologists, it seems, laugh at people a lot.  Long story short again, it is now fully acknowledged that Bretz was right, and – again – the geologists were wrong.  Another paradigm busted.


The third one is one fewer people have heard about, though today it seems that it was inevitable that today’s paradigm was going to exist.  In the 1600s and 1700s occasionally a meteor would come flying in and crash to the ground or airburst in the sky.  People in various places witnessed them, but dammit, those pesky scientists continually asserted the wisdom of the day —  Rocks cannot fall from the sky:

In 1790 a fireball raced across the sky near the town of Barbotan in southwest France. Immediately after the fireball disappeared a shower of stones fell. Over three-hundred people witnessed this event, making it difficult for French scientists to discount. The scientists were forced to admit there was some connection between the fireballs that fell from the sky and the rains of stone. In 1794, four years later, more than 200 stones fell from the sky near Siena, Italy with enough witnesses to make the existence of the event undeniable. Though many scientists explained the stones as condensations from “igneous clouds” or volcanic ash from Mount Vesuvius, a German researcher had a different idea.

That year Ernst Friedrick Chladni published his theory in a book titled On the Origin of the Mass of Iron Discovered by Pallas and Others Similar to It, and on Some Natural Phenomena Related to Them. In this work Chladni built a case that rock falls were related to fireballs even if the fireballs were not observed. He also reached the conclusion that fireballs because of their very high-speeds, among other characteristics, had to be coming from outer space.



His view received immediate resistance and mockery by the scientific community. In the late 1790s, rocks from space just didn’t fit into the concept of nature…

…However, a large number of conservative scientists kept on denying the obvious facts, among them some of the most influential members of the respected French Academy of Sciences. Their mockery and sarcasm was silenced several months after Howard’s publication: on April 26, 1803, a shower of about 3,000 stones fell in broad daylight near L’Aigle, France, witnessed by countless people. This incident attracted much public attention, providing a fertile ground for further research and the young science of meteoritics.


Which was correct? The paradigm before or the paradigm after?  We can look at many areas of science and find that scientific fact of today is very different from scientific fact of past times.

Science can be wrong, and science has been wrong.  But the rest of us still look to scientists to study the natural world and study the advance of humans and the civilizations that humans have built.  Why do we look to them, if they have been wrong as many times as they have?  Because they are the best we’ve got?  (Not everybody agrees on that latter point.)


And there are other stories and many things today that would in the past have been denied as being impossible in most cultures, even western culture – electricity, microscopes, telescopes, computer chips, radio waves, flexible fiber-optic cables, radiation, television, horseless carriages, satellites, splitting of the atom, computers, automation, plastics, even magnetism, to name a few.  (And more are on the way…)  Each new development had to overcome the thinking of the past in order to come to life.  For each one of those – and more – we have had to accept that we could see very small things or very far away things, or light up buildings and cities, or watch as machines do work that used to be done by humans – all sorts of new realities in our world.  If there is one thing true about humans, it is that somebody will develop new things that will change the way we think – even the scientists (maybe even especially the scientists).  But we certainly do NOT only get advances by waiting for scientists to develop or discover them.  Look up “serendipity” some time, and see how many discoveries and developments were just accidents.  The idea that the slow and steady advance of science takes us into the future misses the quantum leaps and serendipity that the history of scientific and technological development is populated with.

One thing we cannot do is to pretend that what we know now is all that can be known or that only a certain class of people have brains enough to discover new things.  Steve Jobs would be a name we wouldn’t know if all new ways of working with the world came through scientists.  Or Thomas Edison, or Nikola Tesla, or Orville and Wilbur Wright, or Henry Ford, or Karl Benz, or Cyrus McCormack, or Eli Whitney, or Johannes Guttenberg, or Benjamin Franklin, and the Montgolfier brothers, to name a few.  Every one of the developments of those men and others like them were also trying to make sense of the natural world.  Literally, the world and civilization as we know it would not exist without their efforts to solve the problems in front of them, which were certainly attempts to understand the natural world – in their cases in order to make things that had not existed before.

Today in the sciences we see very little of people sticking their necks out and bucking the orthodoxy.  It is as if it is assumed that everything that needs to be discovered has been discovered, and that no new things will come along to shake the present understandings of the natural world.

On the other hand, a growing number of alternative researchers are saying just the opposite – that there is a lot to discover yet, and that our scientific and historical hubris is keeping us from discovering them.


  1. It is my personal evaluation template for all science debates to watch the way people are acting in the debate, as opposed to the data.

    It seldom steers me wrong.

    And scientific community — be it archeology community with Clovis Man and the mass Mammoth kill hypothesis, the Warmists with human caused global warming — acts with a combination of willful ignorance and invincible arrogance, they are behaving 180 degrees opposite of the foundation of all science, the scientific method.

    Anyone demonstrating that behavior combination are operating from faith, identity issues, vested interests, or some combination of the three, not science.

    This behavior cluster by the Climate “Warmists” is the core reason I am a skeptic of human caused global warming.

    • I couldn’t agree more, Trent.

      When I got into the climate warming thing, I did it in part because I’d had three experiences with greens and their arrogance and hubris. People attracted to the “green” sciences – ecology, oceanography, etc. – are already convinced before they take their first 100 level course in college that they are on a mission.

      Perhaps we should call them crusaders (small “c”, if just for spite). If they were Muslims we’d put them on the terrorist lists for being crusaders. If they were Christians or some oddball religion, we’d call them cultists. But since their cult is an anti-CO2, “kill industries of all kinds everywhere”, somehow they are given a pass. IMHO, if they ever get their way, the world will go back to the middle ages – as surely as we would if the Muslim jihadists had their way.

      In their own minds, they’ve twisted science away from empiricism and toward “doctrinal science” – “Believe what we believe or be gone, Heretics!” They are VICIOUS and unprincipled. And having gotten the ear of policymakers”, they have – like Stalin – learned how to manipulate bureaucracies to their ends.

      SOME day humans will have an educational system that weeds out such people and turns them into street sweepers and prevents them from affecting the popular wisdom. Until that time, they are – as General Hammerstein referred to Hitler – “mischief makers” that the world will have to deal with.

    • Trent – You might be interested in a new book about the global warming debate. Anthony Watts at WUWT posted about it it at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/11/a-review-of-steyns-scathing-new-book-about-michael-mann-a-disgrace-to-the-profession/

      It is by the guy Michael Mann has been suing for libel, Mark Steyn. And it is quotes from other scientists about Mann. Steyn isn ‘t pulling any punches – even with his court case still in process. And perhaps it is BECAUSE of the court case – if other scientists say such thing about Mann, then Steyn maybe can further abet his case because he can show that his blogged opinions about Mann are not out of line, after all.

      The book is in pre-order state at Amazon.com (link on WUWT in the post). But Anthony posted a few zingers. I went ahead and bought it myself. Amazon.com says delivery on September 1.

      At the risk of being sued, my opinion about Mann is that he is the prototypical academic bully – volumizing ad infinitum and threatening if necessary – to shut up someone who had the temerity to disagree with Mann. He does NASTY stuff, both to distort the totality of the evidence, and then he does nasty stuff to shut others up or to push a cohort into misrepresenting things. With Man it is all about destroying his opponents. He is the epitome of academic viciousness.

      This is shown clearly in the Climategate*** emails, in which he not only worked successfully to get one journal editor fired, but also worked against others and their ability to get peer-reviewed. In addition he used strong-arm tactics on dendroclimatologist Keith Briffa (one of Mann’s inner core group buddies at that time) to get Briffa to append one type of data onto the graphed line that ostensibly was to show another type of evidence/data. This bullying episode was the heart and soul of the “Hide the Decline” scandal. In that, Mann was front and center, convincing Briffa to “use Mike’s Nature trick” – the splicing trick that I mentioned here.

      ***See http://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/

  2. Steve; As you know, I too am an uneducated (school of hard knocks doesn’t count as edification) question asking pain in the arse. I want to understand everything about anything and know it by yesterday. Since I’ve been coming here and to the Tusk And Malaga Bay my general interest in things has grown expotentionally and yourself and the people at the other sites have been incredibly nice and helpful to me. I have contacted other professionals with questions only to be ignored or brushed of as a nuisance and idiot. But I am if anything I’m persistant and can usually find either help or direct answers to my questions. I’ve learned therefore I have changed. Science SHOULD be there to answer everyone’s questions or help them to find their own answers. I’m starting to ramble on so I’m gonna to ramble on down the road. Almost time to call it a night.

  3. Jim –

    I’ve learned a helluva lot, too. Some of these things are just so damned intriguing that I can’t help myself. So I identify well with what you just wrote.

    I’ve found over time that the volume if stuff I’ve learned come back around. I.e., Something I learned long ago applies to some new topic – and the flood gates open up in my head showing me how the old and the new fit together in some way. The more I learn, the larger my mental archive that can be accessed and compared to the new concepts – and then applied. Over time you may find this to be true, too.

    I’ve had fair fortunes when I’ve written academics. Hahaha – one time one assumed I was an academic, too, and addressed me as “Dr. Garcia”. I didn’t think it was wise to correct her – I might need to write her again, and if she misinterpreted my status, it wasn’t because of anything I had said.

    One thing I DO do: When I write to them, I phrase things in as scientific of babble as I can muster – including buzz words and LONG words and non-farmer phrases — LOL. I THINK it helps to not play the Will Rogers down-homey card. Hint: When using long words, make sure you’ve looked them up to make sure you are not misusing them!


    • Steve; When I correspond with people I do not know I’m very careful not to go homey and be as precise as I can be so as not to come across as a dufuss. When I’m comfortable with the people I’m interacting with I will sometimes go with my more natural persona. I’m sure I’m guilty of large word incorrect usage but generally I’m fairly good with my vocabulary, If it doesn’t sound or feel right I’ll go back and rephrase. My biggest falling is proof-reading before hitting the send button, but I am getting better. The old dog can learn new tricks.

  4. Trent –

    Back before Climategate (late 2009), Climateaudit.com’s Steve McIntyre was a lion against the warming meme. One of the big issues then – as it should be now, too – was Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI). This short article/post from 2008 (when the warmists had everything going their way – execpt for McIntyre and WUWT) discusses it quite succinctly. You might enjoy reading it.
    Correct the Corrections: The GISS Urban Adjustment June 2008

  5. Steve,

    When scientifically educated and academically tenured people are out there changing data and firing people for disagreement via political means, they are neither professional scientists nor professional academics.

    At best they are “activists” of some stripe.

    At worst, they are book burners/culture destroyers akin to the Nazis who burned “Jewish science texts AKA relativity text books” or the religious fanatics that burned the Library of Alexandria or blew up the Buddha statue in Afghanistan.

    • That’s pretty much my thinking on them and their book burning mentality, too. I’ve arrived at the word “crusader” – which kind of fits the Nazis and Christians of that time (and other times, too) and Taliban.

      Once activists attain power, it evidently goes to their heads.

      I’ve read a preamble to an early IPCC summary, and, in it, it clearly states that their goal is to eventually eliminate – not merely reduce – ALL carbon emissions. On the surface that doesn’t sound anti-life, but in reality it is. I saw immediately that to shut down all industry and vehicles that have carbon emissions is to destroy entire economies and put hundreds of millions of people out of jobs. In addition, it would require that food distribution would stop along with all other shipping. They may THINK in one corner of their minds that so-called energy will suffice, but it damned well won’t, because the energy density in solar and wind is far, far too low in both. And their beloved electric cars? They forget that the electricity has to be produced in power plants.

      The global warmists have a crusader’s need to destroy what they don’t like. They demonize it every time they open up their mouths, and the general population after years of hearing this demonization over and over have long since accepted that it must be true – otherwise why do they keep hearing it? Ask Nazi propagandist Josef Göbbels about how that works.

  6. Steve,

    For your alternate science files, Having been a test driver of 2.5-ton, 5-ton and 8-ton military trucks, the pictures at the UK Daily Mail link sure as hell look like petrified heavy truck tire tracks.



    Did an ancient civilization drive tanks across Turkey 14 MILLION years ago? Probably not, but this academic thinks so…

    By Will Stewart for MailOnline

    Published: 08:05 EST, 17 August 2015 | Updated: 09:45 EST, 17 August 2015

    A Russian academic has claimed that an ancient civilization drove giant all-terrain vehicles across Earth millions of years ago – and that the tracks are still visible today.

    Geologist Dr Alexander Koltypin believes that mysterious groove-like markings in the Phrygian Valley of central Turkey were made by an intelligent race between 12 and 14 million years ago.

    ‘We can suppose that ancient vehicles on wheels were drove on soft soil, maybe a wet surface,’ he said.

  7. Something pretty wild (for me) —-

    I drove across Turkey back in 1971, and the article discusses the area near where I went through, and I wondered how close I’d been to any of this. When I scrolled down ad saw the map, the red-hatched area is EXACTLY one of the roads I was on, Kütahya and the road SE of the city.

    I promise that WE did not make those ruts…LOL

    Long ago, I saw photos of similar ruts in other locations. This is not a unique phenomenon.

    There was no comprehensible system for the tracks but the distance between each pair of tracks ‘is always the same,’ he said.

    He added that the distance very much fits that between the wheels of modern cars, but the tracks are too deep for today’s vehicles.

    ‘The maximum depth of a rut is about three feet (one metre). On the sides of ruts there can be seen horizontal scratches, it looks like they were left by the ends of the axles used for ancient wheels.

    3 feet deep means more than a six foot diameter wheel. Allowing for an axle, the wheels would need to be up to 7 feet or more in diameter. That makes the wheel idea a bit dodgy, IMHO. Conestoga wagon wheels were from 40 (front) to 59 inches (rear) in diameter – a far cry short of this 7-foot dimension.

    Also, there is hardly a vehicle in the world – other than monster trucks – that could be in any material up to 3 feet deep and actually make it through it. And even monster trucks can make it through only because of tire treads. But tire tread marks are clearly not in evidence. And smooth wheels/tires? Not gonna make it. Not with a self-contained engine, and not without being helped from an external force, like a team of horses or oxen. But such help would be visible as hoof tracks. The drag coefficient must have been HUGE. Because of that an axle-propelled vehicle seems to me to be VERY doubtful – smooth wheels trying to overcome that high drag would have slipped. So without any tread marks, I don’t see self-propelled vehicles as being the answer.

    My bottom line on this is that there is some other explanation. I don’t accept the wheeled vehicle idea, even though in OUR technology that is what it would need to be. Some parts of the evidence seem to contradict other parts – from the viewpoint from our technology. This seems to me to be another case of someone jumping to a conclusion.

    • Regards this —

      >>Also, there is hardly a vehicle in the world – other than monster
      >>trucks – that could be in any material up to 3 feet deep and actually
      >>make it through it. And even monster trucks can make it through
      >>only because of tire treads. But tire tread marks are clearly not
      >>in evidence. And smooth wheels/tires? Not gonna make it

      Sufficiently sticky mud will fill the tire treads (or caterpillar treads for that matter) and leave a smooth bottom without a tread mark.

      Military trucks with central tire inflation systems (CTIS) can lower the ground pressure enough to get floatation, and thus traction, even when the treads are mud filled.

      The trick is driving _s-l-o-w_, in low gear, for maximum torque without spinning the tires.

      Traction going that slow is as much from sidewall to displaced mud as it is tire to rut bottom. This is part of the idea of snow chains

      “Scratches on the side” are a key tell for CTIS or a very wide caterpillar track over the snow vehicle in mud

      • Thanks! I am not convinced, to be honest. Driving like that, “_s-l-o-w_ in low gear” is an emergency maneuver. Those tracks don’t suggest to me some emergency, honestly. I’d view them as something normal, unless something presented itself to convince otherwise. If one needs to drive _s-l-o-w_ another route should be taken. I’ve also seen film and video of people in Africa driving in such areas, up to their axles sometimes – BRIEFLY. In all cases they needed other vehicles or tractors or horses to get them out. In addition, the tracks they left behind were always butchered up with lots of rocking back and forth making the tracks anything but smooth and straight.

        I DID once see a 2.5-ton Army truck up to its axles in mud. A drunken motor pool Spec E-4 had taken it out for a joyride. It was 100% stuck. A second one was dispatched, with a winch. As soon as THAT one kicked into gear, THAT one burrowed itself straight down into the mud, as fast as it could sink – the vibrations speeding up the process. It was one of the most remarkable things I’ve ever seen and will never forget how FAST it went down – even before the driver could take his foot off the gas pedal. They got the two of them out with a THIRD one, safely ensconced on pavement but quite a distance away.

        Vehicles up to their axles in whatever that lava muck was – not something anyone would do intentionally – and then continue onward. No experienced driver would choose to go through it.

        I don’t know WHAT the explanation will some day turn out to be, but the vehicle explanation does not get my vote. I choose to wait and see if another, better, explanation rears its head.

      • Driving “_s-l-o-w_”means a great increase in the torque requirements – meaning HUGE horsepower needs. Tell me how many hundreds of HP those monster trucks need to do what they do – and then tell me that ancient peoples HAD such HP available. Of course they didn’t.

  8. Thankyou sir for your understanding of what is not, I have for half a century been bemused at the ramblings and dead ends of main stream science that never get solved. I have waited for some one to come forth, those in the past that bucked the system with new information ended up side lined or dead. The internet has confounded their secret ways and as such I will tell you a little story.
    A friend and I have done experiments that confound the scientific paradigm in the past.
    As we speak we almost have a new experiment ready to run with protocols so strict that the results will be beyond refute, if successful and will change science forever, into a new direction.

    When our test is complete and successful I will give you the full guff to disseminate. Wayne

    • Wayne –

      Have at it. Don’t be surprised if I find things in your work I don’t like or DO like. I used to have Lloyd Pye send me the ideas of others to vet. He sent me perhaps 15-20 of them. Not one had a solid grounding in fact. Lloyd got pissed at me for being so hard-nosed. I am not the last voice in any of it, but if I see flaws, I will say so.

      One such alternate idea I find unsupported (IMHO) is the Electric Universe stuff, as an example. SOME of the principles they talk about I can see need to be looked at – but when they then take it all to go to Velikovsky’s inter-body lightning bolts, I quietly disagree and think they don’t understand how they are taking a quantum leap that is “a bridge too far”. They don’t seem to understand that this could only happen if there was initially a LARGE difference of electrical potential between the two bodies. This difference would be removed by any discharge – making them both the same charge – but NOT likely to be neutral. Any flow of electrons in, say, a battery is a “discharge” – that is what gives us the motive power to USE the electricity. But such a discharge does not make the battery’s two terminals neutral in charge; the battery remains charged, and the two terminals still have more difference of potential (difference of charge) that we can utilize. When there is a discharge, the discharge is not – not across many thousands of miles – fully equalized across both bodies. When the electrical potential is insufficient to “jump the gap” (overcome the resistance), the discharging stops – leaving the two bodies still with a (smaller) difference of potential (having different charges). The planets do not now exhibit such differences of potential. Most have internal differences of potential (charges) between one region and another, but overall are pretty danged neutral. I’d note, too, that two charged bodies can each be, say, negatively charged and still have a difference of potential – one more negative than the other. In such a case, a discharge between them cannot possibly make wither of them neutrally charged.

      At the same time, electrical effects can NOT possibly be dismissed completely – as the astronomers argue. Electrical differences, if they exist – and they do – MUST play some part. Astronomers argue that the equations are all long since perfected, and there is no ROOM in them for electrical effects. I totally disagree with such assertions. They use G – the gravitational constant all the time, and have given it a value of 6.67384e11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2. They have NO idea what underlies that number, and as far as I know they have never even TRIED to assess its provenance. It is an empircal value, derived from experience. WHY is it not, say, 6.77384e11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2? Or some other value? I see no reason at all why the electrical effects cannot be hidden in the Gravitational Constant.

      And BTW, British biologist Rupert Sheldrake has uncovered the inconvenient hidden secret that the value of the Gravitational Constant is not constant. It’s value changes, as measured empirically. He confronted the British Standards Board about it, and they had to sheepishly admit that he had discovered their “dirty little secret”. So much for constants.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s