Why trust an individual like Peter Klevius more than academic peer constellations?
Because Klevius is a free individual - and because he (unlike islamists, socialists etc) accepts full Human Rights equality (so called 'negative rights') hence making him immune against bias common among many scientists! And it certainly doesn't hurt that Klevius happens to have an IQ far beyond most professional academics - while also featuring a rock stable mentality combined with no political, religious or academic hindering ties.
So..., as Klevius was told after having done the military IQ test (they never gave the actual numbers though): 'If you ever have any difficulties - don't blame your brain for it!' However, that's precisely what Klevius has kept doing ever since by calling himself mentally impaired - meaning it's not always easy to communicate with people of average IQ - not the least because first you have to lower the bar so you can communicate, and when doing so your partner starts easily disrespecting/belittling what you say, and when you explain it a little deeper then they usually get hurt. But to those who really know Klevius he defends himself by pointing to the fact that they have all the time they need to check him out afterwards and possibly correct and embarrass him -, if they can (compare Klevius writings). As a close friend of Klevius used to say: 'I hate when you give up so quickly when you're wrong. That leaves me with too little space to really enjoy my victory. And when I'm proven wrong I can't give up equally quick'.
The photo below was taken after Finland, as the first country in the world, got full* suffrage for women - but long before the US, UK, and most other countries got the same right.
* Meaning they could also be elected.
Now we have the unbelievable situation that the US not only lacks full equality for women in the Constitution (due to religious prejudices - see the tragic history of the Equal Rights Amendment) but also that US women let themselves be cheated by a sharia supporting crooked money puppet who just happens to have a Vagina. So Trump's alleged kisses and hugs and statements to some women mean more than EVERY woman's right to equality?! Good job done by Saudi sponsored politicians and media - and easily duped US women.
Only stupid or emotionally unstable people need to boast - Klevius is neither. So why does he "boast"? Well, he doesn't, he only boosts info about himself as a service for his readers.
Self-citing is self-advertising, but necessary if important knowledge is kept hidden from the people. However, the real problem is deliberately biased out of focus "research".
The quality of research is determined by how well it keeps its alleged focus. However, scientific "doping" happens within peer constellations and filtered citation lists used to alter the focus while "sharpening" it with misleading academic semantics resulting in more or less nonsense "research" where the "red line" is that very bias it aimed to achive for political, religious or whatever purpose other than science.
Drawing by Peter Klevius
Forgive Klevius for self-citing his book which, btw, warns about
citations even in general* (see chapter Science and citations). However,
self-citation is neccessary for the people serving under-dog who is
declared pariah because of being "islamophobic" (i.e. defending basic
Human Rights against sharia islamofascism) and/or not scientifically PC
despite more IQ and less bias than main stream science - and most
importantly, offering scientific insights that could straighten up many
costly research paths. However, as with everything, even science is
heavily influenced by personal, religious and/or political bias.
Therefore, acknowledging this fact, Klevius main scientific methodology
is sniffing bias - even within himself.
* Klevius warned 1992 (pp. 40-44) for
automated scientific papers where the coherence lies in deliberate bias
based on citation filters rather than scientific research focus (compare
drawing above). Unlike nonsense papers produced by SCIgen type
programs, citation steered (i.e. academic "cherry picking" for
political, religious etc reason)
Please, fact-check Klevius - if you can! Your IQ may be too low for the
task, and the originality of Klevius insights (i.e. insights better in
line with known facts than main stream academic ones) may seem confusing
precisely because of an inevitable lack of other scientists saying the
same.
Klevius isn't boasting - just boosting. What some might think is Klevius
boasting about himself is in fact the very opposite, namely Klevius
criticizing dumb/biased "scientists" sitting in an ivoy tower guarded by
prestigious academic dogma, greed and conceit - not to mention peer and
citation cartels etc.
1979 I wrote a letter to Wittgenstein's self-appointed successor at Cambridge, G. H. von Wright, in which I explained my philosophical Demand for Resources analysis - and got an overwhelming and positive response. Demand for Resources was then published as an article with the same name 1981. I was paid 500 Finnish Mark for it and was working on a construction site where the electrician told me that he 'had seen it in the paper but didn't understand anything about it'. However, I assumed others would pick up on it but nothing happened - just like when I, much later made som academic presumably "groundbreaking" theses, I was met with compact silence - and the professors even showed their aversion when they had to approve of them - or in one case even disapproving because she asked me 'why don't you want women to lead their lives as they want?' when in fact my thesis was about the very opposite, namely defending the 1948 Universal Human Rights declaration against sharia. In other words, she projected her own prejudice against me as I being against how muslim women chose to live, when what I was explaining was that Human Rights give muslim women the right to live in accordance with islam but islam doesn't give women the right to choose how to live. Btw, if you have difficulties tracking me before 1988 this is because until then I used my mother's surname Kotilainen that my foster parent had put on me after first using my birth name Lundberg - which I got because my mother was still in a long divorce process when she started meeting Olof Kinnmark and they eventually created me - and then my foster parents' name Lindroos (the foster mother wanted to adopt me but the foster father and grown up son protested because that would have meant sharing the big real estate and farm with me). And I didn't know about my real father's death before it was too late for inheritance. And a couple of years later I became a poor single parent with a five year old daughter when my ex left me with all debts and didn't pay for her share as the court had decided. So I have had five surnames of which only one was approved by myself.
1991 G. H. von Wright also very approvingly read the manuscript to my book with the same name. Two years later 1993 he published his own book The Myth of Progress, which I think was heavily influenced by my book.
1984 I publishe The Green Dilemma where I pointed out how the Green Party had become a puppet for socialdemocrats and feminism in a way that was far from the ideas of the founder Petra Kelly.
1988 Met with a deserting South African soldier and other people with knowledge about Bushmen (who possess mongoloid features).
1992 Published Demand for Resources (ISBN 9173288411) in which Klevius
pointed to Northern Eurasia and mongoloid cold adaptation (incl. the
remarcable 280,000 bp Jinniushan in northern China) as the possible
source of the evolution of the truly modern humans (meaning the one that
clearly differed from its predecessors when it comes to intelligence,
i.e. what started that very cultural change we still experience).
2002 Spencer Wells points to Central Asia as the genetic node for M45 (however, Wells continued to propose out of Africa).
2003 Klevius theory of a better packed brain shaped by climatological
changes (e.g. up and down through Central Asian channels to the cold but
protein/fat rich Siberia - see Klevius old and since 2006 unchanged Out of Africa as pygmies and back as global mongoloids).
2004 Homo floresiensis was announced and gave Klevius a better glimpse
of how the packaging actually might had taken place - while other
scientists declared it "a sick human" and having a "too small brain" for
doing what it did.
2010 Klevius art track map connected the Denisova bracelet (the oldest
and most sophisticated known truly modern human achievement) with other
Eurasian paleo-art and noted a band from Baycal to the Pyrenees with a
new level of sophistication not seen anywhere else in the world, and
fitting well into a picture where the truly modern human spread out from
northern Eurasia - now with a better packed brain in a bigger skull.
2012 The announcement of the archaic looking Red Deer Cave people (11,500-14,500 bp) existing in Southern China just like the extremely modern looking but much older (70,000-155,000bp) Liujiang skull, long after the birth of the truly modern human (45-50,000 bp?).
What is called 'anatomically modern human' in biased PC language is in fact nothing more humanlike than what we call Neanderthals when it comes to tool technologies and behavior. In fact, Klevius thinks we have to question the whole early homo/Neanderthal picture and rather see tool technologies and varying grades of "archaic" feature in the light of hybridization from the north instead of from the south. It's actually quite embarrassing how serious looking anthropologists keep telling you that there was a one way grid between Africa and EurAsia that worked 100% for tens of thousands of years - even though the alternative view presented here ticks all the boxes.
Klevius wrote:
Wednesday, July 08, 2015
Skulls and genetics out of east Asia/Siberia and into Europe, Mideast and Africa
Skull development, tools, art, genes, all go in the very opposite direction of what main stream PC science tries to propose in its eagerness to please its own invention*, Afrocentrism.
* An ashamed Klevius admits that he also used to be an Afro-centrist until he realized the awful crypto-racism it contained - back in the 1980s.And when data don't fit the wanted picture it's called "mysteries". However, the biggest mystery seems to be the axiomatic "Adam" haplogroup A00 which was not created by a god but by biased OOA people.
Most "mysteries" in genetics disappear by abandoning OOA and changing direction of HSS evolution. Only South East Asia offered a combination of tropical island/mainland fluctuations needed to put pressure on size reduction paired with evolutionary isolation in an environment where only those survived who managed to shrink their heads while keeping the same intelligence as their mainland kins with some double the sized brain. Homo floresiensis is evidence that such has happened there.
Early modern human settlement of Europe north of the Alps occurred 43,500 years ago in a cold steppe-type environment long before similarly skilled humans appeared in Mideast.
Kostenki on the Don river in the European part of Russia has layers associated with culturally modern humans underneath the ~40,000 bp Campanian eruption.
The clearly modern human (we have even his DNA) called Ust-Ishim man is ~45,000 bp and found at the Irtysh River near Ural mountains.
Early Ahmarian culture and the Protoaurignacian culture, living in south and west Europe and west Asia around 40,000 years ago used small stone points as tips for hunting weapons like throwing spears, and they appeared in Europe 3,500 years earlier than in the Levant. This is logical if those humans came from the Altai area in Siberia and followed the Mammoth steppe which went all the way to central Europe and never came even close to Mideast.
The oldest HSS skull ever found is from east Asia.
Liujiang HSS, 1567cc, est. 70,000 bp to more than 150,000 bp. Even the lowest possible estimate is far earlier than anything similar in Africa, Mideast or Europe.
Do consider the multitude of techniques in use to blur the physical HSS definition. However, this skull can't be confused with anything from Africa before 70,000 bp.
The Liujiang skull most probably came from sediment dating to 111,000 to 139,000 bp but there is a small chance that it came either from a deposit dating from around 68 000 bp or from one dating to more than 153 000 bp. However, even the loweat est. combined with its very modern shape and size would even then make it the first of its kind.
Early modern human settlement of Europe north of the Alps occurred 43,500 years ago in a cold steppe climate - and 3,500 years earlier than in Mideast.
Some 37,000-42,000 bp Neanderthals in Romania/Europe are supposed to have disappeared. Oase 1 is within the Aurignacian cultural tradition, which was the first wave of modern humans in Europe est. 45,000-35,000 bp. Compare this to the 45,000 bp modern HSS at Ust-ishim in western Siberia, of whom we have a full DNA.
John Hawks: The morphology of the skull is very comparable to those that come from the early Upper Paleolithic of Europe. Its parietal bones bulge outward and upward into distinct bosses, which place its maximum breadth relatively high on the parietal bones, not at the midpoint of the skull as in Neandertals. But like many early Upper Paleolithic crania, it has Neandertal-like features. In the case of Manot 1, the occipital bone projects backward into a bun-like structure and there is a slight erosion of the surface of bone at the cranial rear called a suprainiac fossa.
Oase 1 from the same site and time as Oase 2, was clearly human but had some 5 to 11 percent of his genome originated from Neanderthals. This individual's Neanderthal ancestry was more recent than that of any modern human tested previously. Some half of its chromosome 12 sequence coincided with Neanderthals rather than modern humans and it had a Neanderthal ancestor within the past four to six generations, pointing to later than anticipated admixture between Neanderthals and the modern human population to which Oase 1 belonged.
Tampa Ling (Laos) skull (TPL1) and jaw (TPL2) est. 46,000-63,000 bp.
Recent discoveries in Laos, a modern human cranium (TPL1) from Tam Pa Ling‘s cave, provided the first evidence for the presence of early modern humans in mainland Southeast Asia by 63-46 ka. In the current study, a complete human mandible representing a second individual, TPL 2, is described using discrete traits and geometric morphometrics with an emphasis on determining its population affinity. The TPL2 mandible has a chin and other discrete traits consistent with early modern humans, but it retains a robust lateral corpus and internal corporal morphology typical of archaic humans across the Old World. The mosaic morphology of TPL2 and the fully modern human morphology of TPL1 suggest that a large range of morphological variation was present in early modern human populations residing in the eastern Eurasia by MIS 3.
Niah skull, Sarawak (Malaysia) est. 39,000-45,000 bp.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment