Recent Epoch

11,000 years ago to the present

Average longevity of species is about 5 to 10 million years according to the fossil records. But now man has reduced the longevity of species to under 100 years.


14,000 - 10,500 YEARS AGO

Earth is in the grip of a major ice age around 14,000 years ago. Any ideas of some humans making making an exodus to stay close to the equator for the constant supply of warmer air and the abundance of freshwater and food would have surely been exploited at this time. The only thing to spoil this thought was the extra competition from predators (such as wild cats, snakes, biting insects, and all the rest), and other hominids who were also having the same idea of congregating in this region for food supplies. Perhaps migrating with the seasons might be a better option without getting too close to the rainforests. Or else do as the few hardy brutes have done in the past, which is to endure the cold in the winter by choosing to stay put in more icy temperate zones sheltering in caves or making use of thick animal skin hides for clothing and creating tents (e.g., Neanderthals). In the extreme case, why not use the ice itself as an effective barrier against the extremely cold winds coming from the Arctic regions through the construction of igloos? Makes perfect sense to use the very item that everyone wants to avoid.

Then, around 13,000 years ago, something began to warm the planet. Slowly at first, as one would expect as humans burned wood to keep warm and cook food, and the innumerable belching and other gaseous emissions from the orifices of enough animals (including humans), but a moment came when the warming process had suddenly accelerated. Not the normal and natural warming of the planet as had occurred towards the end of previous ice ages.

The question is, why the sudden warming?

What we do know is that the continuous burning of wood by humans to keep warm can release tiny amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, meaning it will warm up the planet by doing its famous jiggling in the air as it absorbs energy reflected off the ground. At the rate this gas gets emitted by human activity and the fewer humans that lived at this time, it can take up to 30,000 years for the planet to warm by a couple of degrees. Get enough humans to carve out an existence in the colder regions by burning enough wood and we can expect to see some reasonable contribution to global warming over a few thousands of years. The only complicating factor is whether the soot from burning wood could enter the atmosphere to cool the planet rather than warm things up. It all depends on how high the human population was at this time, and also if there was regular rainfall. Plenty of rain could see much of the soot brought back to the earth's surface, leaving behind relatively clear skies. Not so for the carbon dioxide. The gas is much too small and lightweight to be collected by rain and fall to the ground. Clearly this gas will contribute to some global warming in the air until such time as the great forests can soak it up in their trunks.

The other possibility is the level of methane entering the atmosphere. Methane is another greenhouse gas. However, unlike carbon dioxide, methane is a more potent heat trap. Indeed, the big elephant in the room of planet Earth is how much methane can enter the atmosphere to warm the planet. It doesn't take much to affect world temperatures. Although one can imagine humans were contributing their own fair share of this gas around the campfire (the proverbial Blazing Saddles scene), we think this contribution would not be quite enough. More could be contributed by other animals grazing on the grassy plains. However, the majority of methane emissions would generally make their sudden appearance at certain times in Earth's history from other natural sources (mainly permafrosts and deep under the oceans).

There is a balancing act going on between methane and carbon dioxide in determining how warm or cold the planet gets. Sure, one gas or the other can, on their own, can contribute significantly to global warming if released in reasonable quantities. In the case of carbon dioxide, it usually requires a quarter of the planet or more to be suddenly in the hot molten state for the gas to come out significantly to affect world temperatures. We have seen this occur once in the late Devonian era. The only other way to greatly affect world temperatures is to release a reasonable amount of methane. Not as much as carbon dioxide, but enough to cause significant increase in world temperatures. But how it normally works is that one gas will not be solely responsible for warming the planet. In nature, both have to play in tandem. Usually the carbon dioxide is the one that initiates an increase in world temperatures for whatever reason until a tipping point is reached when just enough ice over the oceans and to a lesser extent over land melt and enter the oceans. This will be followed by melting of the permafrosts causing more nitrous oxide and methane to go into the atmosphere. There will be the occasional spike in emissions over this region in certain consecutive years, especially during the summer months. However, the real tipping point gets reached when the oceans are unable to supply enough cold water to sink and keep the methane hydrate ice structures intact. All it takes is an unusually warm summer to see the oceans become suddenly warmer than expected. The warm waters expand and reach down far enough. There is a breakdown in the icy structures leading to a massive and sudden burst of methane gas that emerges out of the oceans and enters the atmosphere. When it happens, virtually all the animals on land will not noticed what has occurred. It is all quiet and invisible. It will be like one year it feels rather warmer than usual, and then a good couple of years or so later as the methane gas circulates in the atmosphere, it will feel atrociously hotter than most animals are used to. That is the time when a massive rise in world temperatures takes place, and animals will tend to notice it worse in the summer time, and with much fewer cold days in the winter.

In terms of geological timescales of millions of years, the sudden emission of methane and subsequent rise in world temperatures would be like a "switch". One moment things may look normal, but the next everything is suddenly and unexpectedly hot. It is this "switch" that can effectively end an ice age, and do it in a fairly dramatic way.

In the case of this ice age nearly 10,500 years ago, the rate of warming was too quick even for nature and humans to have reached the "tipping point" through the emissions of enough methane to pop out of the oceans. Not even the massive ice caps at this time could keep ocean temperatures low enough to prevent an unexpected surge in the amount of methane spewed into the atmosphere. Something else had driven global temperatures to rise at a more rapid pace.

According to geological evidence gathered by scientists, it all started in North America. A curious place where we see massive ice sheets melting rapidly for some reason. Certainly not the normal melting scientists have come to expect from previous ice ages. Whatever the cause of this melting, not long after this, the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic Ocean was re-activated where warm waters in the Caribbean sea and the Gulf of Mexico moved across the Atlantic Ocean to reach northern Europe. On reaching this continent, the warm ocean currents pushed the colder waters back to the equator. Without this warm ocean currents reaching Europe, the cold and dry air coming in from the northern Atlantic Ocean would have only added to the already harsh and bitterly cold Arctic winds coming from the north to keep Europe pretty much locked in an almost perpetual ice age. Now, at last, the warm and moist air coming from the mid-Atlantic Ocean was breaking the ice age stranglehold over the European continent. Once this happened around 10,500 years ago, all it took was one unusually hot European summer with temperatures of 6 to 8°C higher than usual to begin melting a significant amount of solid ice from glaciers (1). Give it another 5 to 50 years (a blink of an eye in comparison to Earth's geological history) for the Ice Age to came to an abrupt end throughout Europe.

With all this extra fresh water flowing into the oceans from melting ice sheets and glaciers, sea levels around the world rose significantly. As a result, the island of Tasmania was formed south of the Australian mainland as water rushed over the flat plains to create the sea of Bass Strait. As for the great valley separating Europe from Africa, this would get slowly flooded by salt water from the Atlantic Ocean as it toppled over a canyon lying between Spain and Africa. At first it was a trickle, but as the ocean levels rose higher, it appeared as a large waterfall. About 1,000 years later the Mediterranean Sea was formed and joined with the Atlantic Ocean. By the time all of the ice sheets in Europe, Russia and North America had melted, scientists believe sea levels rose by at least 74 and probably as much as 120 metres in less than 50 years. This was a fairly quick event compared to the slow rise in temperature lasting thousands of years when the world was in the midst of the ice age.

Sea floor imaging showing the topography below the oceans of south-east Australia. (Source: Petroleum Exploration Society of Australia web site, 2007).

While methane and a bit of extra carbon dioxide did certainly contribute to world temperatures at this time, not all scientists were in total agreement about how the last ice age came to an end. The big problem with the natural methane and carbon dioxide theory for global warming is that many large mammals of the megafauna era, including the Wolly Mammoths, died out after the end of the last ice age. We are talking about the same animals that survived a number of previous and more intense ice ages followed by several interglacial periods. And yet incredibly, many would not survive the end of the last ice age. Why should the end of the last ice age be any different?

Some scientists have considered a range of possible explanations.

Was it to do with the rate of melting of glaciers that took many slow moving large animals by surprise with sudden floods in low lying areas? For other animals, the melting ice sheets could have created numerous large marshy areas causing large animals to struggle and eventually got bogged down in the mud. Without adequate food to provide the extra energy and muscle development, these exhausted animals probably starved to death where they stood.

Or did the large animals suffer overheating in the unusually warmer days with their thick skin and fur? Then again, the animals could simply migrate to the colder regions further north.

Or was it a situation of humans being too eager to hunt down the last remaining large, cumbersome and slow to reproduce animals to extinction (knowing how easy it was to catch them)? A kind of smorgasbord of meat-lovers delights just sitting out there for the taking.

Now, according to archaeologist Professor Ken Tankersley from the University of Cincinnati, he thinks he could have the answer.

In a place called Sheridan Cave located in Ohio, Tankersley noticed a thin layer of distinctly reddish dirt known as the Clovis layer below 10 metres of soil. The depth of this reddish material is significant in the sense that it has been dated to around the end of the last Ice Age, approximately 13,000 years ago. A fairly useful observation. Now we just need to know what is this reddish material. Fortunately, Tankersly has made another important discovery. It seems that this same reddish layer has been observed in at least 20 other sites dotted around the continent suggesting that whatever had deposited this material was a widespread event. Furthermore, after analysing the soil, he noticed unusually high concentrations of iron (up to 50 times above the expected level in the surrounding soil both above and below the layer in question). This naturally had Tankersly wondering, "Where did this extra iron come from?"

One clue lies in outer space.

After realising some rocks in space can contain high amounts of iron, Tankersley put forward a bold new theory to suggest that an asteroid may have impacted somewhere in North America causing the end of the last Ice Age. If not, it would be a comet scrapping the Earth's atmosphere and creating a partial combustion of the air. What it was and where precisely he doesn't know for sure. Indeed, the biggest problem with his theory is the lack of a crater and one that is much bigger than the thing that hit Arizona nearly 50,000 years ago. Then again, after further studies were made by planetary geologist Professor Peter Shultz using a high speed gun in California developed by NASA, it suggests that the great glacial ice sheets of North America were up to a mile thick and this may have been sufficient to help reduce the size of the crater and erode much of the evidence of the impact site once the ice melted making it virtually impossible to locate. The theory is sounding more plausible by the day.

The mysterious red layer with unusually high deposits of iron. This is taken inside Sheridan Cave in Ohio, U.S.A. (Image from the BBC documentary film Catastrophe, 2010.).

If this isn't convincing enough, Tankersley has discovered bones of mega mammals living on the continent that have suddenly stopped existing above the crucial iron-rich red layer. As Tankersley said:

"We're looking at the Clovis layer. It's a very distinct layer here in the case. Beneath it, we have mega mammals remains. Above the layer, there are no more mega mammals. This literally represents the extinction event." (Quote from the BBC documentary film Catastrophe, 2010.)

On closer examination, the bones within the layer appear to have characteristic signs of flesh having been burned off the bone at temperatures above 300°C which no ordinary cooking method by humans could achieve. The seemingly sudden nature of the extinction of the mega mammals in North America and the widespread nature of the iron-rich layer of soil is not suggesting to Tankersley of any possible human contribution to the extinction (well, at least in the North American continent). As Tankersley stated:

"One of the things that intrigues me about this time period and about this site is we have no clear cut answer as to what caused the extinction of these mega mammals. Over hunting, people killing these animals just does not fit. And when we look at all the other Ice Ages which came to an end, these mega mammals did not go extinct. So why now? And why here? This is one of the most intriguing questions that I've ever faced." (Quote from the BBC documentary film Catastrophe, 2010.)

It is most certainly intriguing by any account.

Yet we have a problem with this asteroid theory as the sole explanation for the extinction of all mega-mammals. This single catastrophic event that allegedly took place in North America was not sufficient to cause an immediate extinction of all mega mammals in other parts of the world, most notably the Wolly Mammoths in northern Europe and Russia. These animals were far enough away from the action in North America and had survived previous ice ages, and even more severe than this last ice age. Why should these animals die out after the alleged impact event?

It is understandable to think that in North America these major floods creating marshy grasslands would have been an impediment to the escape of these large animals. Get stuck in a marshy bog and you can also be a sitting target for early humans living on the continent. Or else you get tired and die, or get cooked in the summer sun (if not over a hot fire by the humans). However, in Europe and Russia it would take longer for the ice to melt, probably a few months, and so permitting enough time for these animals to migrate to higher ground and in places where there would be plenty of food. And why would the Wolly Mammoths of Europe and Russia eventually disappear from the face of the Earth at least a thousand years or so after its cousins in North America did? The extinction for the European animal counterparts did not coincide precisely with the reddish layer. The animals would continue to survive for quite a big longer after the cataclysmic cosmic event had affected North America.

Not even the fact that the conditions could have got colder after the collision because of extra dust in the upper atmosphere to block the sun would have been enough to kill off all mega-fauna. The Wolly Mammoths of Europe have survived much colder conditions for a longer period of time in previous ice ages. We can discount the possibility of high heat or extreme cold as the cause for the eventual demise of the European mega-mammals, as these animals can migrate and find higher ground. Something else was playing a role at the time to see many of these animals to become extinct.

We wonder what it is?

It is clear that the impact of an asteroid or large comet in North America was not big enough to wipe out all the big animals in Europe and Russia. In fact, the impact wasn't even big enough to wipe out or severely curtail a large two-legged creature we call humans in North America or Europe.

Indeed, just prior to the sudden warming, there was an opportunity during the period when things were slowly warming up for some humans in Europe to migrate further north and east across Asia. Further exploration of the lands by these highly adventurous individuals allowed North America to be accessible thanks to the land bridge formed with Russia and with slightly less ice to act as a barrier to the migration. Once humans travelled south again, they would have discovered a whole new world in North America. The opportunity to live off large mammals consisting of Columbian Mammoths (the cousins of Wolly Mammoths in Europe), bisons and wild boar would probably have been too great a reward to go back to where they came from. Humans quickly made a home in this part of the world. Yet in doing so, the asteroid/comet impact would not wipe out the humans in North America, so why would we think the animals in Europe and Russia would have to suffer the same fate as the big animals in North America after the impact?

Perhaps it would be more reasonable to say that there was a reduction in the number of mega-fauna at the time of the impact as suggested by Tankersley. However, in Europe and Russia, the large Wolly Mammoths persisted for longer. Any short period of slightly colder and drier conditions following the impact would probably not have affected the animals in Europe. Or else they would have migrated further south to escape the cold. Then conditions began to warm up. Sure, the warming of the planet can reduce the vast grasslands spread across southeastern Europe right to the far eastern edge of Russia as a valuable source of food for the large animals. There is even talk of extra snow falling in the United States after the ice sheets melted forcing the warm and moist air to travel further north and leaving the eastern United States in extra snow in the winter and a drier desert-like environment in the southwest of the continent. But all this would simply mean the large animals would migrate to where the food would grow. And as evidence would have it, we learn that Wolly Mammoths and other large animals did migrate north to follow the ice sheets while staying on higher ground to enjoy the dry and thick grasslands. Following them were reindeer, bisons and other animals that still exist to this day. yet despite all this, and given enough time, it seems that not even the largest animals would survive. Something else had affected these larger animals. Combined with a slow development of the reproductive system and the possibility it took up to a couple of decades for the offsprings to reach adult maturity and size, it is more likely the constant pressure of humans hunting down Wolly Mammoths led to the extinction of the species.

Not all extinctions at the end of the last Ice Age can be blamed on an asteroid/comet impact.

On a Russian island in the northern Arctic region, the last place to find the most recent remains of Wolly Mammoths showed they indeed migrated north and survived. Interestingly these animals became smaller in size to adapt to the environment on the island with less food. That must have taken a while to adapt to a smaller size. yet the animals did not survive beyond more than a thousand years after the cosmic event despite adapting perfectly to the environment. Something stopped them from reproducing and allowing enough time for the offsprings to grow. There is only one explanation: humans must have reached the island and eventually played a decisive role in the ultimate demise of one of the largest animals of the Ice Age era to have ever lived. The humans must have continued to think there were plentiful supplies of these animals just sitting out there ready for the taking. All they had to do is move further north or wherever. When they reached the island, they still had not realised the last remaining Wolly Mammoths on the entire planet were living on this island. Once the animals were slaughtered, years went by and these humans walked around in the summer and probably thought to themselves, "Where have all those big hairy elephants with large tusks gone? Have the gods been mean to us for not giving enough of our offerings to appease them and so give us a bountiful supply of wild game for us to hunt for the summer?"

Yet humans continued to come up with the idea of hunting some more animals of the smaller variety and later sacrificed a few more to the gods thinking that the large animals will somehow return. Why weren't these animals not coming back? Well, it doesn't take a genius to work out why.

Now, at last, we may have the complete picture. Mega-fauna were on the dinner plates of prehistoric man for those living in Europe, Russia and North America. The most recent evidence from American scientists of damage to bones of Ice Age giants show that the increasing population of humans was messing up the ecology of the mega-fauna. There are signs that humans may have targeted the larger male mammoths in an unsustainable way until eventually the female mammoths didn't have a stable social structure and a reliable source of breeding stock to help support a population that essentially was too slow to breed and took too long to look after the one or two offsprings born every so many years. Once this happened, extinction was inevitable.

April 2017

Research work conducted by Dr Martin B. Sweatman, of the University of Edinburgh’s School of Engineering, has effectively sealed the case for a comet hitting the Earth as the most likely explanation after discovering another anomaly in the soil. This time platinum was found in higher concentrations than expected. But what really swayed the case in favour of the comet theory for North America is the discovery of what could be the oldest known man-made stone carving showing a record of an important astronomical event. At first the symbols in the carving were interpreted as animals. Later, computer simulations of constellations in the sky for the time supporting the age of the carving through carbon-dating has pretty much confirmed the symbols represent a constellation in the sky and the arrival of a comet. Scientists were also able to pinpoint the date of the event that led to the comet hitting the Earth from the position of the symbols and computer modelling as well as carbon-dating of the carved stone to 10,950 B.C.

Following the impact, scientists remain confident that nomadic hunters in the Middle East had to adjust to a change in climate. Initially the vast areas of the Middle East grew wild wheat and barley with relative ease and a plentiful supply of water. After the impact, conditions in the Middle East got colder and drier. This forced humans to come together and figure out ways to grow and maintain the crops, through effective watering techniques and selective breeding. It is from this moment on that farming began, allowing the rise of human civilisations as we know it today.

As Dr Sweatman summed up the work:

"I think this research, along with the recent finding of a widespread platinum anomaly across the North American continent, virtually seal the case in favour of (a Younger Dryas comet impact).

Our work serves to reinforce that physical evidence. What is happening here is the process of paradigm change.

It appears Göbekli Tepe was, among other things, an observatory for monitoring the night sky. One of its pillars seems to have served as a memorial to this devastating event – probably the worst day in history since the end of the ice age."

Details of this research can be found in Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry (Volume 17, Number 1, pp.223-250), titled "Decoding Gobekli Tepe with Archaeoastronomy: What Does the Fox Say?"

While those events were taking place in the Middle East, more land in Europe was getting freed from the ice and snow. Soon humans saw the benefits of living further away from the equator and not have to migrate quite as much to find food. From this came the establishment of invisible boundaries known as territories, and later those territories became nations, as a crucial next step for humans to keep their homes, protect natural resources, and to feel safe again.

November 2019

The same attitude by humans to decimate long-lived (mostly hardwood) trees is taking place in the 21st century. Human are not giving enough time for trees to grow a decent size before they are cut down.

10,500- 10,000 YEARS AGO

Interestingly, a study of some great civilisations such as the Aztecs have revealed fascinating stories of a great flood occurring at this time. Not surprising considering the ice sheets were melting, and quite quickly too, together with rising sea levels. It all kind of makes sense. As the stories indicate, some civilisations were thought to have been destroyed and new ones formed as a result of the great flood sweeping across different parts of the world. If there is any truth to these stories (and why would we doubt them?), it would seem as though some people were oblivious to the impending disaster heading their way at the time. People were too focused on their own lives and the petty things they were doing within a group situation or village that they could not develop a science, record patterns, and eventually get a bigger picture of the environment to tell them what was happening over time.

Despite the presence of certain environmental disasters, prehistoric man at the end of the last ice age continued to hunt and gather food and lived in groups of between 20 and 100 individuals, averaging about 40 people. On rare occasions, some groups in different parts of the world would swell to greater numbers (approximately 10,000 people) forming what are crudely known as human civilisations. Human population throughout the world probably didn't exceed 5 million.

Michael S. Bisson from the Anthropology Department at McGill University, Montreal, Canada, said:

"At the end of the Pleistocene, there was a dramatic warming of the climate that had very important ecological consequences. First, the polar ice caps melted back significantly as well as the continental ice sheets. This raised ocean levels and isolated North America from east Asia, and also isolated Japan and parts of Indonesia from the Asian land mass. This allowed genetic drift to create new forms of new species in these different areas. At the same time, cold-adapted animals — particularly the large mammals such as the Mammoths — no longer had an environment in which they could survive and they became extinct, perhaps helped by human hunting. In other parts of the world, however, increases in temperature generated much bigger increases in biomass. Animal and plant productivity increased and this created important opportunities for humans." (Quote from the French documentary film Homo Sapiens: He Domesticates Nature produced by France 3 Production Sud-Ouest, France 5 TSR RTBF, To Do Today Productions (Belgium), CAB Productions (Switzerland), Productions Pixcom (Canada), Ballistic Pictures (South Africa), Tang Media (China), Danit Rossner (Israel). 2004.)

Michael S. Bisson. (Image from the French documentary film Homo Sapiens: He Domesticates Nature, 2004. ).

April 2017

Professor Alexander Tollmann from the institute of geology at the University of Vienna has studied numerous myths of a great flood, recorded in almost every prehistoric civilisation. The timing for these myths seem to coincide with the geological evidence for a comet impact in North America. The flood has led to many islands and caves being filled with ancient bones showing a great catastrophe had occurred in our distant past.

10,000 YEARS AGO

The last of the Wolly Mammoths, Wolly Rhinos, Bisons, and the Sabre-Toothed cats died out. The comet impact had certainly affected the mega-fauna resulting in mass extinctions across North America. However, in Europe and Russia, the case is less compelling. Something else had put an end to the largest animals. Now we can safely say that the largest mega-fauna mammals of the ice age era were already on the stone age dinner plates of various human groups existing at this time. Combined with a slow reproductive rate of these animals and an unabating appetite for these creatures, it is likely that humans were growing in numbers, finding more efficient and effective ways of hunting some animals for food and perhaps for pleasure (or sacrifice a few to the gods in the hope of hunting more animals), as well as probably choosing the easy targets to kill (such as the young). Once the main food supply disappeared, it can easily bring down with it other species in the ecology.

13 May 2006

A poorly reported study in The Canberra Times (forcing readers to check the Nature edition for names of scientists involved in the work and their official quotes) claims carbon-dating of more than 600 bones from bison, wapiti, moose, humans, wild horses and mammoths recovered from Alaska and the Yukon Territory suggest that the timing for human habitation was either a little late (the fossils for humans in these regions seem to point to a figure of around 12,300 years ago and certainly not earlier) or left very little time for humans to cause the extinction of an animal such as the Wolly Mammoths. Scientists are inclined to believe the extinction was probably due to natural climate change. In other words, 2,300 years is considered not enough for humans to cause the demise of a large animal such as the Wolly Mammoths in reasonable numbers. The scientists of this study, however, are putting the decline of the Wolly Mammoths at closer to 11,800 years ago, rather than 10,000 years ago. We assume this is from the fossil records. So we are left with a time frame of say 500 years for humans to do the damage.

Is it possible? Yes. We know the reproductive rates of these animals are not high, and the numbers of these animals were not exactly great. Humans, on the other hand, were on the rise, in both numbers and becoming more efficient in hunting down the big cumbersome prey. But is it probable? It all depends on how many humans were around, the type of humans and hunting techniques employed, what the land was like as the ice melted, the kind of diet these humans had (was it more meat, or did it contain plant materials?), how many animals remained etc. In the case of human diet, we can safely assume most humans had a taste for meat, especially in colder regions, and not something that would wane easily at this time despite the warming conditions.

Actually the study doesn't completely discount the possibility that humans could have had an impact, and probably significantly too. It just suggests that the available human bone fragments put them at a time where it seems there was little time for whatever number of humans were around to have created the damage, assuming, of course, that the animals existed in large numbers (which they almost certainly weren't). But it isn't impossible. Furthermore, these humans could have been living in those areas where the bones were found at an earlier time. And any animals killed by humans need not have to be entirely for food. Perhaps some humans were trying to prove how much of a man they were by killing enough Wolly Mammoths and other animals?

A similar thing can be seen today with elephants getting shot and killed by poachers because of a desire to acquire the ivory tusks from these animals.

As for the warming of the planet starting from 13,000 years ago, one would think this would have favoured the existence of larger animals thanks to the extra grass growth. Some scientists are not quite in agreement here. They have suggested the possibility of muddy grasslands and this would restrict the movements of larger animals trying to escape predators, including humans.

So why not migrate to warmer and less muddy regions (i.e., higher ground)? Or travel closer to the poles and use the long tusks to remove the snow to find the dormant grass underneath (a favourite for Wolly Mammoths)? Animals would surely take an easier route so long as there is food beneath the snow. It would explain why these creatures had continued to survive for as long as they did during the previous colder Ice Ages and interglacial periods.

Now some scientists are certain humans did have an impact after realising these larger animals were genetically predisposed to producing very few offsprings, and a number of bones from these animals showed signs of spears that had been thrown at the animals by humans. If human populations expanded in the warmer interglacial period and hunted in greater numbers the remaining adult Wolly Mammoths (or even the offsprings), then there may be little time for these animals to fully recover and produce enough surviving offsprings to maintain its own population. It is likely this is how the last of the Wolly Mammoths had died out.

9,800 - 6,000 YEARS AGO

For a couple of thousand years after the end of the last Ice Age (certainly by 9,800 years ago), food was in plentiful supply even by human standards (despite animals of the mega-fauna variety having been wiped out at this time). One only had to walk a short distance to gather food across the countryside with relative ease.

In the more seasonal temperate zones, humans would migrate to the equator during the winter to continue the tradition of foraging and gathering food before returning to their familiar hunting grounds. These foragers would have acquired a taste for a wide range of interesting plant-based materials, such as seeds from grasses and certain fruits. In the summer time, people built stone huts to stand the test of time and weather conditions and quickly become habitable again the following spring to summer period. Actually, could this speed of habitation of existing or previously built man-made stone huts helped in the development of another human activity known as agriculture and farming?Whatever the truth, scientists do know that by around 9,000 years ago, there is evidence to show humans were minimising this travelling around between the seasons. Losing valuable territory and other resources, including stone huts, could have been a drawback to all the migration.

For example, at a site near Motza, Israel, we see a decision by a group of people to come together around 9,000 years ago to live and become specialists in sheep-keeping. The area also yielded a number of flint tools, including thousands of arrowheads, axes for chopping down trees, sickle blades and knives, to name a few items.

For a number of humans choosing to stay in a certain area, this approach became an increasingly popular choice. With enough similar thinking individuals doing the same thing, the time came for humans to learn to stay put, work together, and establish an area to grow foods, domesticate some animals, and later expanded into agriculture. Well, the last thing you want to do is lose the place you called a home. Seriously, that stone hut to protect the family took a fair bit of effort to build. One has to be careful of those opportunistic humans arriving in the area sooner than expected and making use of the "facilities" and other resources and potentially fighting to protect it should others arrive too.

With the decision to stay put, humans began to cultivate specific plants and breeding certain types of animals kept in an enclosed paddock or pen to help maximise and stabilise the food supply for humans in a specific region and, therefore, staying on their preferred plot of land. This was a smart decision. Among the foods being cultivated and bred extensively for humans around 8,000 years ago include wheat, rice, oats, barley, cattle, sheep, chickens and goats to name a few. So successful was this approach that the largest agricultural regions would appear in Mesopotamia where a corridor of increased rainfall and higher temperatures running from southern Turkey, Syria and into northern Iraq could be seen. Furthermore, oceans levels have not yet rose to their present-day levels at this time. The full expected 120 metre rise in the oceans have yet to take effect.

As for those humans still living in the far northern and southern latitudes where the ice may persist, they would continue to rely almost exclusively on hunting animals.

With all that agriculture and growing more food-producing trees (such as figs) and wheat over vast areas in the Middle East taking place, a decision was made by some humans to store grains to last the cold winter months. To co-ordinate the work on the land and perform this food storage activity as an essential food security activity and ensure he survival of the human settlement, similar-thinking individuals speaking the same language and living in nearby villages would work together to grow and share in the vast resources being generated by all this agricultural work.

How the region in the Middle East Looked 9000 years ago.

As people learned to settle in specific regions, new territories were established. It was only a question of time before other people outside the territories saw the benefits of extra food and wanted to find ways to access some of this food. If they could not trade something of value to get some of the surplus food on offer, there was a risk of warfare. For those individuals storing foods and amassing other items of value, a greater need to protect the resources became necessary. This effectively began the push to create countries and have the borders protected by a dedicated military force, and with it the Neolithic Age had truly arrived with a solid stone-age thud.

Not long after, there was another anomalous rise in the levels of two principal greenhouse gases in the atmosphere — methane and carbon dioxide. The presence of these gases prevented what would have been, as the scientists have predicted according to recent computer models of world climate over the past 400,000 years, the next expected cooling of the planet and possibly another Ice Age starting around 5,000 years ago. Today, scientists are certain we have entered the warmest period of the planet's history in more than 1 million years, and it is highly unlikely that we will ever see another ice age emerge on this planet. The only exception would be if a big enough asteroid were to hit the planet.

So what was causing world temperatures to increase?

Did humans suddenly evolve into a new species known as Homo Flaturectumus and the males had regular competitions among themselves to see who was the biggest and loudest (it is amazing how one can amplify the effect while sitting on a hard rock floor and eventually echoes off the cave walls)? Highly unlikely. Even if humans could have caused this abundance in greenhouse gases through massive flatulence, it would have required a massive surge in population growth and a massive consumption of (mostly plant-based) foods to create this amount of gases in the atmosphere. Or were the cattle, chickens and other farm animals generously contributing vast amounts of the greenhouse gases? Certainly methane is 22 times more potent in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. Perhaps humans needed to produce more animals for food? On top of that, we do know cows (a domesticated animal in the Neolithic Age) can produce considerable amounts of methane than humans.

Or what about the cutting down of trees and the burning of wood by humans? The smoke might act as a cooling mechanism in the initial stages to prevent sunlight from reaching the ground, but once it clears up, what remains is the extra carbon dioxide to warm the planet.

There has even been talk of some massive volcanic eruptions in Europe and Indonesia contributing to some of the carbon dioxide emissions. However, scientists have calculated the total contribution from volcanoes over the past 10,000 years is at most about 2 per cent of all the carbon dioxide on the planet. A far greater contributor to global warming is hiding among us.

Whatever the cause, evidence is supporting an increase in two important greenhouse gases by around this time. Precise measurements into the amount of each gas found in the atmosphere through tiny ancient air bubbles trapped in the Antarctic ice reveals the clue. As Professor Bill Ruddiman of the University of Virginia said during a meeting of the American Geophysical Union on Tuesday 9 December 2003:

"[An analysis of the gases trapped in the ice shows] You have 395,000 years of history, which sets some rules, and 5000 years that break those rules." (2)

The observations indicate methane and carbon dioxide were on the rise at this time. Ruddiman has suggested one possible reason for the increase. Humans were affecting the climate in a slow and steady rate over a period of 3,000 years because of the way they were organising their natural environment on a greater scale than ever before nearly 8,000 years ago. Then an occasional minor burst of methane at certain times would ensure there was extra amounts of this gas to follow the trend in the carbon dioxide increasing in the atmosphere. He believes it is possible the clearing of forests, planting crops, and raising large quantities of livestock were integral to explaining the anomalous rise in greenhouse gases.

8,000 - 7,000 YEARS AGO

We know life got a little easier for people thanks to an increase in food supplies, not to mention a decision to grow more agricultural foods in certain areas during the start of the current interglacial period and have it stored during the colder months. As people farmed the land and grew more livestock and grains, one can imagine excess food kept in storage could have been used to exchange for other items acquired or produced by different people living elsewhere. Soon trade became an integral part of human life.

Trade is an essential human activity. It is the means by which people can acquire, sell and buy (or barter) foods, tools, clothing and other services from a central point (usually within easy walking distance from a major population centre and/or food producing area where the source of the materials to grow and/or make the products are easy to obtain). It all probably started off by some wealthy male traders with families that had productive land, and later paid enough people to maintain the gardens until they were self-sufficient, and so stay put in the same fertile spot. Then the beauty of these gardens were emphasised by some influential and leading females in human society after inheriting the property and had an eye for creating beauty in the land of plentiful water and foods.

At any rate, among the new and valuable materials being discovered and made available for trade at this time is a rare and one of the hardest substances on Earth known as obsidian — a black-coloured glass-like substance formed by lava cooling rapidly. Because of its hardness and durability, this tough material was fashioned into cutting implements considered more sharper and tougher than stone implements. Its use to protect humans from other humans or a range of other dangerous animals quickly became legendary and considered the hi-tech solution at this time. On a less violent note, this was also the material of choice for making the world's first artificial and portable mirrors for humans to look at themselves (3). Not such a bad idea considering humans were having an increasing influence on the environment. Hopefully humans are smart enough to know what they are doing before it is too late.


We now enter a strange and controversial period in human history, specifically in the Middle East, known to archaeologists and religious leaders as the Biblical times. Biblical not just in the sense that some events mentioned in the Bible were large and affected many people, but also because another entity would enter the minds of men and women at this time. It is not entirely clear exactly what happened as archaeologists are still trying to piece together some of these events and learn more about the nature of this mysterious entity. This is when certain socially useful ideas started to emerge, often interweaved into stories, which may or may not be based on real life events, and all designed to help humans remember the main concepts underlying those stories as well as to give some meaning to people's lives at the time and in this unique part of the world. The ideas were not just to learn to work together to achieve a common goal, but also to make the land productive and sharing in the abundance of food with one another as a form of love, not to mention the need to show love to solve many social problems. There are even stories of certain groups of people in the Middle East who were praying to a mysterious entity for guidance. Indeed, it was a time when humans began to talk of a mysterious entity influencing certain individuals and helping to create strange stories in an attempt to promote this concept of love throughout human society. While considerable care must be taken not to assume everything written in the Bible is factually and historically correct, there are enough examples and connections to geological events and certain archaeological artefacts (such as clay tablets) and mentions of certain human events, such as major battles and the reign of certain leaders, to make one re-think this position. Among the interesting and persistent stories mentioned in the Bible include the "great flooding" (as one would expect to see as the Ice Age ends and sea levels increased), the mass exodus of people in Egypt at a time the biggest volcanic eruption in the latest 10,000 years had occurred on the island of Santorini, and the appearance of a rather unusual young and charismatic man in the Middle East with exceptional knowledge of:

while at the same time providing his own medical insights into healing common ailments suffered by people at the time, as well as showing the food abundance available to everyone and demonstrating this through the baskets of bread and fish that he was able to offer or directed some fishermen to gather from an inland sea.

Yet there is one disturbing element that continues to get mentioned, and hard to ignore. It concerns the sudden appearance of a third and rather mysterious entity entering human life known as God, for lack of a better description or word. Without an absolutely clear definition of what this entity is, all we can say for now is that the increasing archaeological and geological evidence is supporting a number of these stories from the Biblical times, and how this entity continues to play a role in many of these stories. It means that we cannot, and should not, totally ignore them all out of hand as wishful storytelling from creative people with nothing to do other than to grab some free feed from a group of people after entertaining them with these fabulous stories. We cannot afford not to include these stories in a proper discussion of the evolution of life on Earth and the history of humans. There could be potentially useful information to consider when getting a complete understanding of our long history on this planet. If we don't, there is a risk we could be missing out on certain important discoveries, and even the possible connections to something else that might be having an external influence on our affairs, no matter how unbelievable it may seem for some scientists.

The first story worthy of discussion is one of the most controversial. Being such an old story that has survived through the millennia, very few historians would considered it a worthy inclusion into a timeline mainly because there is not enough proof. Just to make it seem too incredible, there is a mention of a strange entity making its appearance in human society just to make some scientists question the reliability of the story. Yet more open-minded and modern 21st century scientists are prepared to consider the possibility. Indeed, these are the people who are becoming aware of what's out there in the Universe and how we should be prepared for the unexpected. A study of the universe using modern instruments is telling us lifeforms should exist throughout the universe and, depending on whether a technology exists to permit interstellar travel, there is no reason why someone else could not arrive and make the decision to influence human society along a path that it considers is in keeping with the principle of love. The only question is, could it have happened already?

Well, to begin with, we have this first story to contend with. It has to do with a great garden located somewhere on this planet.

It sounds very much like we are talking about a place in Mesopotamia where gardens were in abundance. Here, the trees and other plants were productive in the foods they grew. Seems logical to look at the first story relating to some great garden and what some humans were doing at the time. Furthermore, there seems to be a lesson to be taught from this first story, which covers things like food abundance, having everything you need and want when wandering through the garden, and what happens when we have everything we want and how all this can stop people from reaching worthwhile goals of benefit to others and eventually result in people becoming corrupt in their thinking as they believe they can have more things. Then the corrupted person(s) will begin to think it is possible to even become God. And by then, people have well and truly lost the plot.

The only problem is, there can be only one God. There is no room in the Universe to support another. But this is part of the lesson humans must understand.

And all the while, we do have this God entering the picture through at least one interesting story. A God that seems to be initially happy to wander (in fact, walk, rather than slither, or even materialise as you see in Star Trek) through the garden, while allowing a couple of young humans to do the same and benefit from the food abundance in the garden. And here we learn the first important lesson for human beings (apart from discovering the power of God in creating the Universe). It might still be considered a story, but a story-teller could quite easily have avoided mentioning God and just explain the consequences of living a totally stress-free life with nothing to work towards or achieve goals and expect everything to be served on a platter (e.g., nature through a well-established and productive garden).

Yet a decision was made to include God in the story. Why? To what extent does God actually play in the development of our knowledge on how to live our lives in a harmonious and meaningful way?

The emergence of this mysterious entity does complicate things for the scientists, thanks to ancient texts that have come out of the woodworks in recent times. The most notable of these is the Zadokite Document discovered some fifty years ago in an old synagogue in Cairo. The document is a series of fragments representing various copies made of previous copies (no one copy can be considered an original as far as carbon dating is concerned). Each copy appears to have additions made, and others not. No one copy can be considered a complete text in its own right. A kind of compilation of writings that would get added or subtracted by different authors with each copy re-written onto new papyrus. There is talk in one copy of the "Teacher of Righteousness" in the Damascus version, but is not mentioned in the combined scripts of Qumran. The fragments of the Damascus version do mention the very earliest text of the Old Testament, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, but nothing else. These very early "biblical texts" appear to be faithfully recorded with accuracy on every copy. But there is other information in certain copies that is unusual and suggests that something else has been happening at around the time the great gardens were being established, or had been established. And this is where the earliest stories were being told to humans in an attempt to teach us certain important concepts.

Among the text is a mention of this mysterious God coming from the sky and showing its pleasure or displeasure at whatever humans were doing at this time. In terms of the decision by humans to grow gardens, this seems to be highly in favour with God. Was this the time when God had an opportunity to inspect or wander around in the gardens and saw how humans lived and decided to mention one story about two humans living in the gardens? Indeed, any mention of a pitfall in this idilic lifestyle help to reveal the world of opposites as needed to ensure humans remain balanced in their thinking and aware of when things get out-of-kilter in human society and what needs to be done to keep things in check. God seems to be fully aware of this situation all too well. Hence we see God could see other things that some humans were doing in the area that wasn't entirely in keeping with the principle of love, and it seemed at least one story had to be told to explain what this is and why. A simple story that people can understand. At the same time, God tries to teach humans a lesson about why we are in the Universe and what we must do. And while we are here and gather things to make it easier to achieve goals and survive, it is important at the same time not to have absolutely everything we want and do nothing to reach certain worthwhile goals. Certain humans engaged in warfare were kind of doing just that, taking and plundering the things available from others and not doing anything to replenish and rebuild. Regular warfare would occur among a number of men in this part of the world in an attempt to acquire things they considered valuable and make themselves rich. It is clear that God wants to see people have worthwhile and positive goals to reach for, as well as to help others in need. To express this emotion of the good and bad, positive or negative, of all human decisions and actions, the mysterious entity would show love and guide those people who do the :"right thing", or no actions for the people doing the "wrong thing" but let the impending negative consequences occur (such as getting killed in human warfare or some natural disaster that was about to occur) or else do something to make it harder for certain people doing the "wrong thing" to achieve a certain aim or reach a certain destination, such as destroying key stone markers when travelling long distances. For example, the fragments will state the following:

Of God's vengeance and providence:

Now listen, all right-minded men, and take note how God acts: He has a case against all flesh and exacts satisfaction from all who spurn Him.

Whenever Israel broke faith and renounced Him, He hid His face both from it and from His sanctuary and consigned them to the sword. But whenever He called to mind the Covenant which He had made with their forbears, He spared them a remnant and did not consign them to utter extinction.

So, in the Era of Anger, that era of the three hundred and ninety years, when He delivered them into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, He took care of them and brought to blossom alike out of the priesthood and out of the laity that root which had been planted of old, allowing it once more to possess the land and to grow fat in the richness of its soil. Then they realised their iniquity and knew that they had been at fault. For twenty years, however, they remained like blind men groping their way, until at last God took note of their deeds, how that they were seeking Him sincerely, and He raised up for them one who would teach the Law correctly, to guide them in the way of His heart and to demonstrate to future ages what He does to a generation that incurs His anger, that is, to the congregation of those that betray Him and turn aside from His way.

Archaeologists know Babylonia was a state in ancient Mesopotamia, and the city of Babylon in central Iraq appeared around 4,000 years ago. This would suggest that the above story may refer to the period after the gardens were established, but not as plentiful as it once was for whatever reason. Climate change perhaps? Or were some humans becoming corrupt from the riches they could acquire from the area and eventually had changed the landscape? Or were there too many warring factions that were affecting the environment and destroying the gardens and plundering the wealth of certain people to become what we see today (i.e., more a desert)?

However, we also find other odd things occurring at this time that had attracted the "sons of God" to the gardens and wanted to have "wives" of their own. As mentioned in Genesis 6 of the New American Standard Bible (NASB):

6 Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.

Scientists, of course, are a little unclear about what was going on at this time, or what the documents and this quote were referring to in relation to this matter.

If we can rely on this document, we can see that God appeared to be unhappy by the level of interference and the behaviour shown by his "sons" as well as how some humans would behave and become corrupted in the face of plentiful foods and other temptations in this part of the world. It was enough to see one story get created and past down to at least one human with an understanding of God's will and use the example of two humans in the garden to emphasise the problem of how easily humans can become corrupt in their thinking and actions when faced with such abundance. It would appear that if this behaviour is not curtailed in some way, humans have the power to destroy whatever they may have created and potentially cause serious harm to other humans who get caught up in the situation. If there is to be true peace and true sustainable abundance, people must learn to live within their means, be happy with what they have got, maintain the gardens for prosperity and productiveness, help other people with their needs, and think in a balanced and sustainable way about how to live life while reaching these and other worthwhile goals.

Could this be the origin for the first Bible story relating to the great garden of Eden?

One thing is fairly certain: the Middle East back then was nothing like the deserts we see today. It was a time when the area had enough moisture from the rains, flowing rivers, and a number of lakes to allow large and beautiful gardens to exist, most of which were looked after by a number of people living in the area, and probably under the direction of men and later their daughters who inherited the land. Little maintenance was probably required thanks to the prevailing rains on certain days, a land shaped to capture enough water to form lakes, a number of rivers could be seen flowing to direct excess water to the sea, and a handful of dedicated gardeners that made sure the trees and bushes grew well, lushes and productive.

Before we talk about the first Bible story, let us look more closely at this God issue, and who or what it might be.

The mysterious God in human history

We learn at around the time the gardens were established in the Middle East of what some religious leaders describe as the first encounter of humans in the garden with a mysterious entity called God.

"God? How preposterous!", you might say. "Surely God is a figment of our imagination."

"Not so fast, my dear Watson!" as Sherlock would say. Never throw the "baby out with the bathwater" as the old saying goes. Just because we do not understand something does not mean it does not exist or should be ignored. Sure, there are great questions surrounding this strange entity and what it is. Today, with further insights and advances in our scientific knowledge and technology, it is possible we can bring together a certain level of realism and a better understanding of what this concept of (or entity representing) God is and the stories in the Bible. If we leave aside the most likely explanation for God at a highly conceptual level based on Einstein's Unified Field Theory and the view of Eastern mysticism as the unnameable paradoxical thing that is in common in all matter and energy (which scientists have a name in physics called electromagnetic energy and how the oscillating nature of this energy generates its own paradoxical properties and imparts them to this universe in a balanced way, which is in support of the Eastern mystics idea of a paradoxical God), at a more physical level, the term God used by humans in ancient times could also quite easily be an example of an extraterrestrial civilisation(s) that is keen to teach and influence humankind to follow a path with a heart (or love) as the solution to all personal and world problems. This may bring back thoughts of Eric von Daniken's 1970 books of Gods in ancient times and the possibility of alien visitations. But technically it is not an impossibility. It just depends on what it is people in the past claimed to have seen or encountered that made them think it was God. Certainly it would be frightening to most humans to see a large cloud moving across the sky to hide a large glowing flying object (such as in the story of Exodus, as we will discuss later). There were other occasions when bright lights were seen coming out of a large cloud and coming down to the ground, such as the event that saw a young charismatic man from the Middle East get taken away in a spectacular event as witnessed by his apostles. Whoever or whatever are flying these things and is hidden in the great cloud is strongly suggesting an extraterrestrial presence. Well, let's face it. It all happened in the sky and not in the ground. However, if we are dealing with other civilisations coming to visit Earth and observe our statement of social development, we cannot technically use the term God. Anyone who comes down to Earth must be seen as a god (like ourselves with the ability to influence others). It must be a god with advanced technological abilities to reach us, and a strong sense of sociological understanding of the principle of love.

A "god" can influence other life forms. Indeed, any life form can be seen as a "god", especially when it can influence other living things in certain ways, which is either to make them run away or fight, or show love and, if understood, may be reciprocated in the same way to show the positive influence.

The problem we are having here is whether certain people in the past (and continue to do so in modern times) have interpreted the term "God" correctly, or whether the thing "influencing" human society should be more accurately termed a "god". This might be the fundamental issue to deal with here.

You see, as soon as you localise God to anything, no matter what it is (even a cloud in the sky in which something emerges from it to suggest an intelligence is present), it cannot be a true God. It has to be a god, which is a lesser form of a true God. God is meant to be the pinnacle and some to strive for. The kind of perfectionist state showing true love and absolute balance. This is how mystics view the true God. In fact, to avoid localising the entity, words are not used to describe or name the entity. Rather, their focus is on understanding the paradoxical nature of this entity through the choice of statements and poems. No statue, individual, or anything of a localised shape or form can ever be described as a true God. There can be only one God, and what that is has no defined or fixed form to help us give a word or sound to it. Everything is part of God, but God is not in one thing only. It is like a hologram broken into pieces. You pick up one piece and see a glimpse of the whole through one perspective, but you need all the pieces to be put together to show the full and complete picture before you can ever hope to know God in a true sense. One piece of the hologram is "god", but the whole complete picture is "God". And until we have all the pieces, no one knows for sure what the true God actually is. Thus God cannot be in one thing or another. It is part of God. Seriously, how can we have a God preoccupied in a certain shape or form and arriving in a well-defined cloud or in a humanoid-like biological entity arriving to Earth? What would this mean for the rest of the Universe that isn't controlled by God? Is everything else Godless and, therefore, unbalanced? Does this mean the rest of the Universe will fall apart and only Earth is kept in balance when God arrives here? Of course not. In order to maintain balance throughout the Universe, God must be everywhere we look. The true God must be in continuous control of all things throughout the Universe in order to maintain some order and balance. The paradoxical nature of God ensures things exist, is solid to the feel, and maintains the balance of everything we see through this cyclic interchange of opposites that goes on continuously in God. Otherwise, the Universe could not exist if God is in one place and not the rest. It has to be in all places at once, just like the ultimate hologram picture when all pieces have combined. That means for humans to ever see what they thought was God, whatever this God was doing to make the humans think this way, this entity of Biblical times cannot be the true God. It must be a lesser god, which means it must have technical skills to reach our planet, and has the power to influence our activities.

However, if you think this is untrue, then ask yourself: why should humans be so privileged to see a true God at certain times in our history and not for other living creatures throughout the Universe? What makes us special? Surely there is nothing special about humans to warrant this kind of attention at certain times in the Middle East. The fact that we do need some form of intervention and have ideas espouse to us of how to improve our way of living and show love is really odd for a true God. Not unless, of course, we do have people arriving to the Earth to observe and make certain decisions to influence us to follow the right path. It just so happens that path relates to the principle of love and being fair and balanced in what we do.

Seems harmless enough, so long as humans don't get too frightened by whoever this mysterious "god" is. This so-called God will probably have to look a bit like us to reduce the fear. This is important should some humans are permitted to encounter God in person (e.g., as we learn from the Bible through a human named Moses). At the same time, it will have to speak in the same language that humans in this part of the world can understand. Well, how else can ideas be transferred to us? If God is going to come all this way to see our blue-green marble we call Earth and see what we are doing, might as well go the extra distance in making sure we do the right thing. And if not, learn our language and start influencing us. Maybe there is a reason for preparing us for what the future may hold for all of us.

But why teach us love by this God-like (or god) entity coming from the sky? What were we doing back them to warrant such stories and idea to be taught to us? Were we really that dumb? Or have we not got through our evolutionary hang-overs of dealing with the predators and understanding why we had to survive?

It seems like some people in the Middle East must have not been doing the right thing. Certain people felt insecure and struggling to survive. Males ,in particular, might have been more inclined to be brutal in their approach to getting what they want and ensuring life was easier for themselves. If they see something they don't have and develop a desire to have it, there is a risk that some males will show a conquering attitude and needing to obtain wealth and power by any means, including engaging in warfare. No doubt the principle of love would be lacking in such actions.

Perhaps there is a good reason to learn the principle of love. By learning this principle properly, it could be considered essential for human survival by seeing the long-term benefits of its application and ensuring there is permanent peace for everyone.

Apart from guaranteeing food security and giving everyone what they need by those who truly understand the principle of love (perhaps an idea that should extend to modern times by having a universal income available to all so people are not fighting and committing crime just to survive), by the time humans do venture out to the stars and discover advanced alien life, the benefit of this knowledge will be more appreciated. In other words, we as a species need to understand how important it is to treat other civilisations with great respect and love, especially those who can reach us and potentially influence and, hence, can cause us great harm if we don't do the right thing. Not that other civilisations want to harm us in any way. But if they feel threatened by our existence because of our attitude and behaviour and we reach the time in our history to allow us to reach them, they may not appreciate a non-loving, egotistical, and selfish species coming to affect them. They may not appreciate seeing our species getting what it wants, just as some humans have probably done in the Middle East during biblical times. We must learn other ways to preserve and look after all of life. It is the kind of knowledge God seems happy to promulgate to humans through certain stories and later get re-told by certain old wise men in our society.

Are we to infer from this that God really does have an extraterrestrial connection?

We will certainly have more to say about this extraterrestrial connection later. For now, we must keep an open mind on the matter.

Of course, it is not necessary to mention God in order to teach us this principle of love. We can choose to do the right thing. It is up to us. It makes sense not to worry about God and simply focus on the concept of love and balance and the benefits of these two things in everything that we do. Don't worry about God or anyone else who might represent love. Just remember the two fundamental concepts and the positive consequences to come from them when they are applied in our lives and with others. Keep it simple, as some people say. Any other unexplained ideas, such as the existence of a God, should be dispensed with or not mentioned at all. It only confuses everyone else, unless, of course, people start asking questions about how humans managed to figure out what to do at the right times and places. Or are we trying to frighten people into doing the right thing by making people think there is someone out there watching us all the time? Unless we are children still doing selfish things, there really is no need to have a God that comes down from the sky to influence us. We can choose to do the right thing for ourselves.

Yet it seems odd that humans have to mention God, especially in the Middle East. Why mention it in a number of these Biblical stories when the concept behind the stories is enough to teach people and help them see the benefits as well as the negative consequences when we don't do the right thing? Surely, the principle of love can be taught without ever bringing God into the discussion. Just give everyone the essence of what the stories are about, such as the preservation of animals and plants prior to a disaster as well as being kind to one another, and show the benefits of this love (in terms of perpetual and sustainable survival and a happy life free of conflict with others for as long as the Earth and Sun remains, and then hopefully we will have other goals to reach for, such as going into space and travelling to the stars), and humans should have everything they need to survive for as long as they like. Who cares about God? It makes sense just to focus on the concept of love and its benefits and just remember it.

Or, maybe there is another reason for introducing God into human life. Perhaps certain stories in the Bible are based on real events and something from the sky did arrive to affect human thinking. Other people may not see it this way, especially the rational types that expect to see proof. Well, getting that proof may not be far off to obtain given how quickly our technology is advancing. Nevertheless, the general view is that there are enough people in the past who have seen and/or heard things to suggest that something or someone else has had external influence on human society in the Middle East.

It is almost like there seems to be a reason (and a need in certain situations) to mention God in these stories.

Does this mean God is a real entity that wants to have influence on human affairs because we have not always been good to one another or have not understood the long-term benefits of doing the right thing for our survival?

Or is God merely a kind of educational tool designed to teach us another concept, — namely to induce fear into ordinary and less-educated folks and their children of an entity watching them all the time and capable of controlling natural events and, therefore, is teaching us an important lesson to behave and be good, just like it is a parent to a child (i.e., us). To stop a child being unruly and misbehaving, you naturally need a parent to set things straight, to keep an eye on the child to see if he/she is doing the right thing, and whether to interfere again if the teachings were not done right the first time, or even to punish people when they choose not to listen and cause harm. Interestingly, we do see this God in the early stories coming to influence humans in a more authoritarian manner like a parent to a child (much of the Old Testament stories is like this). This would only change when a strange young man emerged into the world in the Middle East with new and grand visions of a more compassionate, forgiving and caring, almost "feminine-like'' God and in letting people think for themselves and be their own "gods" as they work through the issues and solve the problems of the day. It is like people are allowed to make their own decisions on how the principle of love and balance should be applied, and for them to accept that they already have the love of God in them when they know they are doing the right thing. Well, leaving aside one man who was prepared to take on a different view of God, why not just tell us the principle of love in the first place, instead of using fear on people to do the right thing? Given how many times God keeps appearing to humans, it seems the presence of this entity is telling us that:

  1. There may be something real or factual about this God entity.
  2. Our interpretation of God in the Bible needs to be adjusted.
  3. We are not learning very well the concepts that God wants to teach us and we need to be frightened by this mysterious God into doing the right thing. When it was found by one man that this God fearing approach wasn't helping the situation and only stifled people and prevented them from making changes and doing the right thing, we needed to be taught a different way of doing things and give us the power to make our own decisions.
  4. God feels compelled to return again and again and make changes in the way it approaches the matter of love with us, sometimes by punishing some people, and helping others, and then letting another human to teach the concepts in a far more compassionate manner as if somehow we are not learning very well over the millennia on how we should be living our lives properly.

Or else, to the more rational scientists, God could be just a way for story-tellers to avoid answering things they don't fully understand. See God as like making any kind of reasonable conclusion you like. If you don't know the answer to common questions asked by your listeners, better to conjure up a term called God and leave it at that, and the rest can be a discussion of the stories and the ideas they teach to the next generation. But then that would again support something mysterious in the stories considering we could go without any mention of God. Why weave together a creative story and add God in the mix and eventually get around to the actual concepts? Surely humans are creative enough to weave a different story that does not entail a discussion of who or what God is. Just focus more on the concepts and make it interesting and entertaining by seeing the consequences, both negative and positive, when applied. We can only reiterate what we said before: the concept of love does not require God to be present. It is something that should make common sense once we see the consequences and benefits in doing the right thing. We all should know the benefits of love in its various forms when applied to real life, unless for some reason it wasn't entirely clear what the benefits were in the early stages and someone decided to show what they are to us, such as being guided away from danger or warn us of certain natural disasters. But if wise old men leading certain groups already knew about the benefits at a social and survival-based level, what's the point of God? Ignore the natural disasters and focus on the positives. No need to mention God. Just to keep things simple for ordinary folks.

Or maybe it is a bit like what we see in Hollywood movies. There seems to be a propensity for humans to see disaster movies as if the negative consequences are the key to getting more "bums on seats" just to make the Hollywood producers get rich. How else will people remember things?

But if people find out that someone in the story became aware of certain negative events, there is a risk that people will ask, "Well, how in God's name did this person know what was about to happen? It looks too coincidental. Surely someone must have told this person what to do and when to do it to time it beautifully."

If certain stories do not make sense, there could be a risk that some people may forget the stories if they don't make sense. Maybe that is the problem. It is okay to forget the stories so long as the concepts are remembered. But for everyone else who are still learning the concepts, something has to make them think and remember the stories until they understand the concepts. Unfortunately, it may mean that the God issue may have to enter these stories as a way to get people to think and remember.

Or would it be reasonable to consider the possibility that some people have seen and/or heard something or someone, and to them it is best to describe this entity in terms of an ultimate name and symbol, which in modern times we have called God (whether or not this is the correct term to be using)?

The only other thing we can say about God is how it keeps wanting to re-appear to humans at certain times, as if checking to see how we are progressing, and perhaps make any tweaks to ensure we stay on the straight and narrow. The timing for some of these visits is also interesting too. Certain important events (mostly natural disasters) in history tend to show a link to God for some reason according to certain stories passed down to subsequent generations to remember. And those stories are giving details of something quite unusual, but not necessarily one that we should be frightened of (especially if we do the right thing).

In other visitations, we see God as capable of showing itself or a representation of itself by way of a bright light, a burning flame in a bush, or some other imagery in front of certain individuals, usually among wise old men. In those encounters, we don't see an ungodly look to God. Nothing to suggest that it is shockingly strange, ugly, or frightening in any way. Certainly not the type of alien we see in the Sigourney Weaver's movies.

Then we learn from the Bible of an encounter between Moses and God privately in a way that suggests a direct contact with the mysterious entity. Moses went away later and gave no indication we are dealing with a monster. It is almost as if this entity may not look too dissimilar to the way humans generally look. Sure, you will find examples where God may command humans never to look at the face of God. However, this could be more an effort to see if humans avoid trying to be at the same level with God (and so acknowledge that we are students and the Universe is our Teacher) and as a means of frightening people into doing the right thing knowing something more powerful is watching over them. But if the other encounter is anything to go by, it would appear that the true nature of God could radically change people's view and understanding of the true nature of God. People may even have a realisation that God might be just another person (or persons with a spokesperson to pass on the message), and this person is no different from one of our own, but someone with a little more wisdom and a better understanding of love and balance compared to all of us.

One thing is certain. We know the presence of God during this "biblical" time in the Middle East has revealed an intelligence. More specifically, a voice is heard and ideas are transferred in a reasonably intelligible way for humans to understand. Good to see God is capable of learning our language and understanding what we are doing. At the same time, it is an intelligence that seems compelled to keep coming down from the skies after a period of absence, principally in a cloud-like formation and often with lights described as angels flying around, and soon thereafter a voice or an individual who has descended suddenly appears and is talking to a select few humans. The voice or individual does not like to be given a name. It does not want to be called God even if humans are keen to find a word to describe and name this mysterious entity. For silly Jewish men who wanted to put a name to anything, they thought YHWH was close enough because this entity spoke in the human language at the time with a certain common sounding pronunciation by the entity when making a statement along the lines of "I am what I am" that the men decided to use it to form a name.

It reveals how little humans have understood the true concept of God.

As SUNRISE wrote in its 2021 book, Albert Einstein's Unified Field Theory: A New Interpretation, on pages 255-256:

If we go back to the original story of Moses handed down through the generations and recorded in the Hebrew Bible (or the Old Testament in the Holy Bible of Christianity), God has no name. In Exodus 3:14, Moses asked God for a name, and the reply he allegedly received in Hebrew was, "ehyeh esher ehyeh". When translated to English, it literally means, "I am what I am", indicating that God did not wish to reveal his name. Of course, this does not mean that God could not suggest a name to Moses by giving some kind of a specific sound pattern for humans to pronounce and a symbol to write down. In fact, after Noah’s encounter with God, we find humans did exactly that, by creating the sound "Yah" and its corresponding ancient Aramaic symbol to represent God. Later, the Jewish scholars made their own contribution by extracting "yeh" in God’s response to Moses, and formed the word "Yahweh" (or YHWH). However, God deliberately chose not to do this at all, not because God could not speak the language spoken by Moses and create a suggested sound pattern and symbol, but because God, quite rightfully, wished to remain nameless. There really should not be a name. This seems to be reinforced elsewhere in the Bible where we find another statement allegedly made by God in Exodus 23:13 (King James Version):

"And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth."

Apart from preventing people from worshipping other gods once they are categorised with a name, this suggests that the one true God actually has no name (or it is unmentionable, or should not be spoken, but probably experienced and learned from gathering knowledge) in order to ensure all gods spoken and/or created by the hands of humans representing God are seen as one. Does this mean the Eastern mystics are closer to the truth in their understanding of this mysterious entity?

As we can see, God is extremely careful not to name itself, and for good reason too. It probably knows it is not a true God. The problem with trying to name something God is that there will be alien civilisations out there that might have trouble making the sounds representing the true God. Each civilisation are likely to come up with its own unique or different sounding name and visual symbol for God. Keep naming this entity in a variety of different ways through cultures, civilisations, and the type of communicative language in use and before long you can expect to generate an infinite number of different sounding names and symbols to represent this one same God. You never know, perhaps there might be a sound pattern out there in the Universe that reminds us of the worst four letter word in the English language. No wonder people will get confused about what God you are talking about. And if you don't choose your sound pattern and pronunciation very carefully, you could end up starting a war with a primitive alien civilisation if it thinks you are being rude or offensive. Everyone will have a slightly different picture, word and sound for God based on their understanding of what God is. Obviously there will be disagreements with one another about who or what God is and what it represents (and hopefully no wars will start because of it). It is just that certain primitive societies may not realise that no one is technically wrong. This is already a common problem here on Earth. You only have to talk to a Muslim to see how he/she views God and it will somehow be seen as different from the God people see in Christianity or Jewish religion. Wars have been fought between Christians, Jews and Muslims over the millennia because of these supposed differences within their religions. This is the problem. For simple-minded people, how do they know if we are all talking about the same entity? How do we avoid the confusion and acknowledge the concept is the same and is right for everyone? Well, you start by not giving God a name or even a symbol. It just is. That is how you simplify the situation and avoid the confusion among simple-minded folks.

And it could probably save us a lot of bother in terms of the number of wars that have gone on to prove whose God is the true God. What is the point of fighting over the same entity? Why are people getting killed over this relatively simple concept, only to be made infinitely more difficult and impossible to understand by some religious leaders in their own created religions using the kind of words and sounds they prefer to use.

It is not about who is right or wrong on the God issue, and thus who is presumably closer to the Truth. We are all right in our own way. We all have unique insights into God, and when we look closely at these insights at the deepest level, they reveal the same God. We just have to listen to one another and be prepared to see the fundamental pattern emerging from everything that we use to communicate this concept or entity. See how the picture of God is virtually the same for each and every religion on Earth. There is no need to prove anything. Our views are equally valid.

So you can imagine it. Here on Earth alone, our different cultures and languages have created so many different sounding names and special symbols representing this mysterious entity. Then English came along and for simple-minded folks and certain religious leaders, they are happy to call this entity, whatever it is, as God. Yet another name to add to the long list, and probably one we still do not fully understand if we are to rely on the Bible stories. No one seems to really know who this God coming down from the sky actually is. Add to this the multitude of different religions created by simple-minded humanoid species elsewhere in the universe, each with its own name and symbol representing this central entity, and you can see where we are going with this. It is a complete dog's breakfast. However, focus on the core concept and avoid or forget the words and sounds we use and everything simplifies to the very essence. Then we can begin to have a tin inkling of what this true unified entity might be.

Where multiple religions emerge and none are able to see each other as one, there will be people within those religions who will not think through the issue properly. Before long, it would not be surprising if some of them might decide there are "multiple" gods. Or others might just fight on religious grounds in an attempt to prove who is more right and whose God is truly powerful and closest to the truth. Then you have people in the different religions (or non-religious groups) being forced to pick a side, which is usually their own religion or personal beliefs and then the killing begins for those who are not in the same religion (thinking the "enemy" must go to hell). Then we have really gone up the garden path in our thinking on the matter. We know absolutely nothing about the principle of love, let alone who or what God actually is in reality. We are still just a child trying to figure it all out.

No wonder the God who is watching this situation unfold on this planet will be very unhappy with us (and keeps coming down from the sky to teach us). We have no clue what we are talking about.

You can imagine it.

However, God (well, let us use this name for the moment) had shown how smart it was to Moses by not giving itself a name. Very sensible. It wanted to be nameless as if whoever or whatever this thing is was actually acknowledging itself as not the true God. At the very least, whoever spoke to Moses wanted to be seen at a level that is appropriately below that of a true God and yet acknowledge the existence of a single all-encompassing entity without providing a name and one that is above humans and itself who spoke to Moses. Either this entity is trying to be incredibly modest in not stating it is the true God, or it really does know that it isn't the true God but something else. The true God, as understood by whoever this entity that had arrived in a localised form and spoke to the old man, was understood not to have a name. That is the true God.

Interestingly, this is how Eastern mystics view the ultimate entity. They prefer to give no name. All things are said to be one and there is nothing in our choice of a word or anything else of a materialistic form that can ever describe or be shown to be the true God. It does not exist in any localised form, through a word, statue, book, living creature, or whatever. We just have to accept that there is a single unifying and paradoxical force of nature running throughout the Universe and this is what maintains absolute balance in the universe and at the same time allows matter to be created and maintained, and for life to exist, as if it promotes the principle of love and wants life to emerge in the Universe for whatever reason. The rest is for us work out for ourselves why the Universe exists and why we are here. Our journey involves a personal understanding of what this means.

It is through our experience and knowledge rather than through words and symbols, that ultimately help us to see this unifying force and eventually the answer to everything we are searching for given enough time.

Knowing how smart the response was from "God" to Moses, we should expect to see further evidence of this intelligence in action within the Bible. For example, we see in the Bible how this so-called God can speak intelligently to humans. And invariably this effort to speak involves teaching this principle of love, or ensuring that people understand it or else there could be consequences. Very sensible and intelligent. However, as with every action or word spoken by this mysterious entity in the real Universe, we shall also discover moments where the decision to speak or do things is very odd for a true God. At times even imbalanced in its approach, and this can have consequences for humanity in terms of the gender equality debate and other factors. One can understand the positive messages and aims of this mysterious entity, but the way it goes about its work has revealed certain shortcomings, so to speak. It is these shortcomings that may actually tell scientists exactly what we may be dealing with here from history.

Are we dealing with a true God? Probably not.

For example, the decision by God to speak principally to men at this time (very few women have been privileged to be in the presence of this entity) could be the result of the bias of the writer to mention these stories. In particular, the fact that writer was invariably male could have a major influence in how we perceive God. Well, that is one theory. But more likely it was a time when males dominated human society. So if any knowledgeable entity from the sky wanted to influence human affairs, the only way to influence these human males to do the right thing, especially those humans in a position of power or influence, was to get other males to do the communicating, mainly older and wiser men. And to do that, God might well have chosen a male voice to have the maximum chance it will be listened to and taken seriously. However, by making that choice, or even the choice of selecting an old wise human male to transfer the knowledge to other humans, it has effectively proven itself not to be the true God, but a lesser god. You see, a true God should not require to make any kind of gender choice through things like using a male-sounding voice. If men on earth had truly understood the concept of God and a true God had appeared to them as a woman or used a woman's voice, men should be listening just as much as if God was a man or used a man's voice. It should not matter the gender of the voice. All living things should listen to it, unless they are worried they are going insane with female voices nagging away in their head. An understandable concern. In which case, this God might actually choose to show itself or a representation in visual form, such as a burning bush. A totally genderless vision. Then again, the risk is still there for people to think they might be hallucinating and, therefore, could still choose not to listen. Probably better to actually show your face and confirm to the human witness that God is real. However, for Moses, he continued to describe God in the masculine form as being a man or "our Father". It is like he may have seen a male representing God and nothing else in the voice to depart from that view.

Yet even if God is male, this is the problem. Apart from making a choice of the right wise old men with some standing in a human community and one who is not likely to hallucinate or question what they heard, the decision to select a male for the job, or even for God to speak and possibly show itself, in a masculine way, would push God in a more unbalanced position and make itself less of a God in doing so. Sure, we can understand the reason for making the choice. You need mostly old males as they tended to be rational people and with enough experience to know what they are seeing is not a figment of their own imagination. They are more likely to accept God is real if they see something with their eyes as well as hear something with their ears. It must be coming from someone or something. Quite possibly God considering the ideas being transferred seems to be in keeping with the principle of love. From God's perspective, it is likely an old wise man will take heed of such visions and voices and the content of what is being said far more seriously than a young bloke just wondering through the street.

We do see a story in the Bible of two people seeing a representational image of God appearing out of thin air. The husband and wife had to look down to avoid directly looking at the entity as a sign that they are not at the same level as God and acknowledge they are just children of the Universe and God. Yet they could see partially through the peripheral of their eyes how God appeared. By choosing to show itself to two people, God allowed one person to vouch for what the other person heard and saw, so they can convince themselves and others that it wasn't the mind playing tricks. As Judges 13:20 stated:

"For it came about when the flame went up from the altar toward heaven, that the angel of the Lord ascended in the flame of the altar. When Manoah and his wife saw this, they fell on their faces to the ground."

Yet, nothing really beats a good and direct visit from God in the flesh form, as one story of Moses revealed. It would appear, despite others being told not to look at God for fear of something terrible might happen to them that Moses finally got his opportunity to actually see God. And he didn't seem to run away in a fright, or even die from the experience if the following statement from Exodus 33:20 is anything to do by:


But He [God] said, ‘You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!’ "

From the reaction we got from Moses and how calm and composed he spoke of God afterwards to his people, it is almost like God is just another bloke who arrived and had a bit of a yarn to the old man. Furthermore, Moses was not repelled by how God looked. It looks like God could well have had similar human features that wasn't really out-of-place in a modern human society. Or perhaps there were minor, subtle differences. Who knows. Certainly the differences did not detract from God's appearance. And yet even after the encounter, Moses continued to describe God as masculine and using a male voice. Interesting. Do you think Moses could lie deliberately to his followers over this simple gender of God issue given that he must set a good example of being truthful and showing love to one another? A good leader must always do as he says to the people in order to be taken seriously.

But this is the thing. Once God makes the unusual decision to show itself in the masculine form to humans, it effectively has diminished itself of what a true God should be in reality. It can no longer be described as God. Yes, at the very least it must be a "god" from the way it wants to influence human society. However, under no circumstances does it have the power and capacity to take on a true balanced role of being a true God as needed to keep the universe in check and constantly maintained irrespective of any gender issue or other factors that might sway God in one way or the other. God is not swayed to stay on one side or the other, It has to experience the opposites of life and constantly switch back to ensue balance is maintained at all times. It cannot choose one side or the other and stay there. God has to be one for all things in the best way it can.

If this is true, it reveals the imbalanced nature of this so-called God. In fact, Moses wasn't the only person to think God is a He, and not a She. According to other old men who encountered God in the Middle East, God also made the remarkable decision to continue using a male voice (as Biblical writers have not indicated another gender when listening to God).

Here is another example of other humans getting a chance to see God in person. This time from Numbers 12:4–15:

Suddenly the Lord said to Moses and Aaron and to Miriam, 'You three come out to the tent of meeting'. So the three of them came out.

Then the Lord came down in a pillar of cloud and stood at the doorway of the tent, and He called Aaron and Miriam. When they had both come forward, He [God] said, 'Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, shall make Myself known to him in a vision. I shall speak with him in a dream. Not so, with My servant Moses, He is faithful in all My household; With him I speak mouth-to-mouth [or face-to-face], even openly, and not in dark sayings, and he beholds the form of the Lord. Why then were you not afraid to speak against My servant, against Moses?'

So the anger of the Lord burned against them and He departed. But when the cloud had withdrawn from over the tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, as white as snow. As Aaron turned toward Miriam, behold, she was leprous.

Then Aaron said to Moses, 'Oh, my Lord, I beg you, do not account this sin to us, in which we have acted foolishly and in which we have sinned. Oh, do not let her be like one dead, whose flesh is half eaten away when he comes from his mother’s womb!' Moses cried out to the Lord, saying, 'O God, heal her, I pray!'

But the Lord said to Moses, 'If her father had but spit in her face, would she not bear her shame for seven days? Let her be shut up for seven days outside the camp, and afterward she may be received again.'

So Miriam was shut up outside the camp for seven days, and the people did not move on until Miriam was received again.

Perhaps pushing it a bit too far with this male thing. and now he have other witnesses who seen willing to vouch for this masculine image of God.

But as we all know, a true God should not be swayed by the gender choices when influencing human society. A true God coming down from the skies should have the infinite power to influence anyone at anytime no matter how it speaks and the gender it chooses. As Biblical writers have stated, God allegedly made the Universe. Fair enough. In which case, rain down stones and throw some lightning in the mix just to wake up the males in human society. All should be child's play for God. Yet the God we see influencing humans on the ground seems a little concerned about choosing a female voice or a female to appear to humans. Why? Is it trying to be tactful in its approach to humans? Seems rather at odds with the authoritarian approach taken by God to use fear as a means of getting humans to do the right thing as we see in the Old Testament. If God wanted to look tough to the humans, a female can be dressed up to look like a mean female warrior who won't take any nonsense from a human. She will look just as frightening as an authoritarian figure as any man doing the exact same thing. Therefore, if God is going to use fear, the gender of the voice and appearance should make no difference whatsoever. A strong female voice would be fine too. Or at least it should be balanced. Or use a voice where one cannot ascertain the gender. That should solve the problem nicely.

It makes sense to think this way. Eastern mystics are not adverse to the idea of a balanced God. They acknowledge the dualistic property of God that must somehow transcend to become unity in order for the Universe and ourselves to exist. Thus, if we describe God as masculine, it is essential we acknowledge its feminine side too. As Jagassar Das, Kabir Satsang of Canada, said:

"God is neither male, nor female, nor neuter gender. God is neither good nor bad; He is beyond the dualities of the material world. God is the Power that 'Just Is'."

Whether God is actually a balanced entity trying to become one through an eternal and unseen tussle between two opposites according to Eastern mystics or something else, one of the most unlikely places we would see further glimpses of this feminine (or more balanced) view of God is at the beginning of Christianity through the life of a charismatic religious leader who appeared over two thousand years ago named Jesus Christ. Yes, it may seem rather incredible to believe after what we have just discussed earlier and, indeed, even Jesus himself initially described God as "our Father" in statements like the following:

"But Jesus answered them, 'My Father is always working, and so am I'." (John 5:17)

This statement came in response to concerns that Jesus was working on the Sabbath (i.e., Sunday) as he quietly helped to cleanse and heal the people in the natural spring waters at the Jewish temple late at night away from the sight of other Jewish leaders. So much for the idea that God needed to rest on Sunday as Jesus himself is indicating God continually works even on a Sunday to maintain balance and order throughout the Universe.

More examples can also be found in John 14:1–28 when Jesus was answering questions from his male disciples. For example, in John 14:23–24:

"Jesus replied, 'Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me'."

Yet there was a time when even Christianity showed itself to be a more balanced religion, at least compared to the Jewish version. And it all started by this one individual called Jesus. We see this by the way Jesus began to change this masculine view of God through the choice of leaders he wanted to have to lead the new religion. As we will learn later, Jesus was happy to allow women to be part of his ministry of disciples and later permitted one woman to become an apostle under his leadership. In the end, he made her and one man (named John) the "top dogs" of the entire Christian movement. The choice he made is interesting. He didn't choose one individual and forced everyone to accept the potentially imbalanced gender choice. He chose two individuals, each representing a gender. Under Jewish law, allowing a women to this level of being a religious leader as a man this would have been forbidden, but not so under this new religion created by this charismatic religious leader.

There is ample evidence Christianity had once promoted this balanced view of God through this leader. However, soon after the leader's departure in the desert as witnessed by all the apostles, everything pretty much fell apart from there with some male apostles refusing to let go of their Jewish religious upbringing. Instead, they wanted to return to a male-dominated religion. About the only thing these males were prepared to do differently was support this new religion called Christianity in memory of the man who first started the movement, but still wanted to cling to the old testament views of Jewish religion. The origins of Christianity and the teachings of this religious leader are worth discussing later in this page in the section that discusses the essential history of this charismatic leader called Jesus Christ in more detail.

Interestingly, in recent times, and perhaps in an attempt to modernise itself and make itself somehow more relevant to society, we also see some Jewish religious leaders choosing to see God in a balanced way. Although it doesn't attempt to see both the feminine and masculine qualities in God, it simply chooses not to see any gender whatsoever in God. As Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan said:

"God has no body, no genitalia, therefore the very idea that God is male or female is patently absurd. We refer to God using masculine terms simply for convenience’s sake, because Hebrew has no neutral gender; God is no more male than a table is. The fact we always refer to God as ‘He’ is also not meant to imply that the concept of sex or gender applies to God."

Even so, the decision to balance itself is not entirely reflected in the people who lead the Jewish religion, which remains as male-dominated as it can ever be. It may be a coincidence that the terms "Him" and "He" are used for "God", but the reality is that there has to be a reason to continue maintaining this tradition of a masculine God, especially among Jewish men. It is a view that has not changed for millennia. Therefore, the only explanation is that people in the past had seen and/or heard God have witnessed what they have interpreted as a male or having a masculine voice as somehow necessary to influencing what is effectively a male-dominated human society. Somehow God felt it had to show itself in a masculine form if it was to have any chance of influencing humans. It was not because of a personal choice, but rather because of what they saw and heard from this mysterious entity. If in any way this could be untrue, the Hebrew language would have easily changed by permitting a new word to enter people's vocabulary more than 2,000 years ago to take into account this non-gendered or dualistic gender role in God. It hasn't. No effort has been made to balance the view through an appropriate choice of a word or words, or to create a new word to show God is genderless. The people leading this religion have chosen to maintain the masculine term because the original leaders had a reason to maintain that view, and that was because the way God presented itself was primarily in the masculine form.

In other words, God had appeared and spoken in a masculine form. The only question that remains is, Was this a wise decision from God given what we are seeing today in a still predominantly male-dominated society? In other words, are the genders truly balanced in everything that we do and see in society?

For now, it is clear from the Biblical stories as we have them today the bias shown to the masculine form. In the most modern versions of the Bible, attempts have been made to remove the masculine form for God. But this wasn't the case in the past or even among Jewish religious leaders in modern times through the choice of the Old Testament they prefer to read. Either men in those days wanted to make themselves of greater importance in society, or God felt sufficiently concerned that the only way to change a male-dominated human society was to use a male voice and later a male individual to appear to at least one male human. In fact, quite a few witnesses, including women, have supported the masculine view of God as if the situation was closer to being the latter. Thus, it seems that God was the one who had chosen to show a masculine form to the humans.

However, the choice of gender for God reveals a major problem. Somehow we are not getting the impression we have a true God. Sounds more like a lesser "god" with grandeur visions of setting humankind along the right path. But incredibly God felt unsure it could achieve the objective and needed to use a masculine image (together with a bit of fanfare or bright lights, fiery bushes, and all the rest) and voice to have the most influence.

How curious?

So here we have it. It would appear that we have a supposed God showing itself in a masculine way who is willing to come down from the skies to influence human society.

In terms of the actions being performed by this "God", luckily for us this is principally to influence world events at a local level and share certain concepts with those select mostly male humans considered wise, old and trustworthy in human society, and the ones who are likely to command some authority among other humans and possibly influence them. Those concepts seem to be universal and of benefit to any civilisation that emerges anywhere in the world and throughout the Universe. Even if you don't believe in God, the ideas themselves are not totally unheard of or irrelevant to a civilisation trying to carve an existence in the Universe and live peacefully on its home planet. The ideas are based on common sense. Any psychologist can tell you the clear benefits of following these ideas in real-life. It just so happens that some men in the past have learned about the concepts too, presumably on an independent level. If just one or two young people had made a mention of this entity and these concepts to others, most people could write them off as probably having too much to drink or had one too many hallucinatory plants burnt and the fumes absorbed for a good time. Hallucinatory drugs were common in those days to help relax, to remove pain, to understand the purpose of death and why humans are in the Universe, and gain other insights into the Universe through a more R-brain approach. Thus, any talk of a God by young men would probably be laughed off as a figment of their imagination. Only problem is, there are quite a few people in the Bible who have allegedly seen and/or heard this God. Both men and some women have experienced this mysterious entity. And not all are young males, or have taken drugs. Indeed the majority of witnesses are older males leading a simple life, looking after the family and friends and some animals, and with no need to treat anyone badly or be stressed out to require a hallucinatory drug to escape from reality. All the older men we know about seem fairly rational. Might be a good idea for scientists to be a little more open-minded on the God issue no matter how incredible it might seem.

Too hard to imagine a God in our history doing this kind of thing? Why would it be hard? It is clear something is coming down from the skies (and not out of a cave), is intelligent, and can communicate to some humans, with important concepts that we can all relate to and have them shared by a select few human leaders who were privileged to listen and acquire the knowledge from whoever or whatever that appeared to them. The concepts themselves are not totally bizarre or have absolutely no relevance to us in the 21st century and beyond. The principle of love is a noble thing to know about. It has the power to solve many social problems if it is implemented correctly and with care. As for preserving other lifeforms through our love, a look at world affairs today should tell us how important this concept is. None of these things should surprise us (least of all the scientists), or make us doubt the likelihood of these things having occurred in the past and a God having been seen or heard to follow this principle.

Seriously, what makes it so outrageous to consider the possibility of an extraterrestrial civilisation(s) having visited the Earth in the past and promulgating these concepts to us? Is it really so preposterous? Astronomers know the Universe must have Earth-like planets orbiting other stars. It is highly unlikely we are alone. The Universe is far too big and old for just one Earth to harbour intelligent life (i.e., our own). To be on our own would be more astonishing than the idea that we are being visited by intelligent beings. What has to be more believable is the latter, not the former. To believe the Earth is the only special place to harbour life would be like thinking the Earth is flat and we are the only favoured beings in all of God's creation. Yeah, whatever. Just think about it. Seriously, why us? What makes us more special than any other living thing on Earth or even the rest of the Universe with their countless own civilisations? Surely it isn't because we look pretty. For all we know, it may be closer to the truth to say that we are the ugliest two-legged creatures God has ever seen and a more favoured and prettier human-like species could be living on another planet. Surely we cannot be anything special to warrant this kind of special attention. Unique, yes, but not any more important than another species.

We should be like any other animal in the zoo of the Universe and Earth is our natural enclosure. If anything, we are probably the freaks of nature, not the favoured and prettiest creature made in the image of God. If there is any indications that we are in the image of God, it must be because of our shape. Well, let us put it this way. Moses didn't freak out at the sight of God when he had the opportunity to encounter God in person. Sounds like God is not too dissimilar to how humans look, but likely to be far more attractive than we are. Better to look more attractive if you don't look human to ensure humans are not frightened by the appearance. Maybe a cuddly little creature might be alright. Otherwise, the image of a humanoid creature looking very similar to humans on Earth and driving a technology while influencing primitive civilisations like out own might be closer to reality. We are not likely to look exactly like God. Really, why are we so hung up about how special we are to God? We are certainly no more special than, say, the insects that roam the Earth. And why would the Earth be the only place to harbour life? Indeed, there could be other planets with human-like species existing elsewhere. It is incredibly egotistical and silly of us to think that we are the only ones to emerge from this Universe. Of course we are not the only ones. There has to be other lifeforms. Scientists are confident of finding countless life-bearings worlds around other Sun-like stars. There are millions of Sun-like stars just in the Milky Way alone. Add to this the innumerable galaxies throughout the visible universe and beyond (i.e., the Universe) and it would be like saying in a field grown with millet only one seed will grow. How stupid is this kind of thinking? It doesn't make sense. On the basis of probability, it is highly unlikely we are alone. There is more than enough time for other Earth-like planets to evolve highly intelligent beings with the ability to develop a technology. We are just the new kids on the block with our own crude technology. And we are fast approaching an understanding of the electromagnetic technology that will send humans to the stars. We are so close to joining the galactic society of intelligent human-like beings out there and we don't know it yet. Unfortunately, we are just a little too dumb to realise it (and still lacking in a certain amount of love in our hearts to look after our own kind properly and all living things on Earth).

The reality is, too many scientists today are taking on the view that intelligent, technological life must be out there, waiting to be discovered. We are nothing special. If you need more indirect evidence to support this scientific view on ETs, click here.

When we combine this with a little known concept in electromagnetism of moving charged objects at exponential speeds through the emission of radiation, we can finally appreciate that there is a way for intelligent beings in the Universe to venture out to the stars. For further details, click here.

So the next question is, "How likely is it that these people of the sky could have made the decision to influence human affairs once they reach our planet?" Remember, God has never been seen coming out of the ground. It is always from above.

Well, why not? If these people of the stars are going to come this far to Earth, have a bit of a look around and see what we are doing, might as well spend a little time guiding us in the right direction if there is something humans are not doing right. The only tricky bit is trying to act like a real God by not showing bias to any one gender. However, for human society in the Middle East, there may have been little choice but to use a male voice. And with a trusted old man on Earth, possibly to show itself as a male to confirm the male voice. Don't try to mix up the voice of the male with something that sounds feminine or it might well frighten the poor old man who is watching this creature and thinking this is "God".

However, that risks humans eventually finding out that whoever was influencing us is not the true God. Any talk of God using a consistent male voice and looking more masculine is only going to raise more questions later by curious people asking who or what this God in biblical times actually is. And once we find out it really isn't a true God, what happens next? Are we going to forget the stories? We can only hope we take away with us the concepts taught to us by this mysterious entity of the sky and we can implement it properly in society before we discover the real truth about this "god".

Sure, it is understandable for highly rational scientists who are trusting of their eyes to provide definitive answers to choose to denounce a God entity. They simply cannot see God. Or if it exists, what's wrong with showing itself to the scientists? Basically for these scientists it is a question of direct evidence. If they can't see the direct evidence firsthand, surely God does not exist. However, as astronomer Dr Carl Sagan once said, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." It is the same with UFOs. Even when we know there is an electromagnetic technology and humans continue to report UFOs to the authorities with their electromagnetic side-effects, scientists still can't grab one of these objects to find out what they are and discover how real the whole thing is. Either a testament to the reliability and durability of the technology built by the alien engineers, or perhaps the USAF has been very good at hiding the evidence of what it has found (you can learn more about this from here). Or perhaps the people flying UFOs do not want to be seen directly by everyone on Earth. Perhaps a little more imagination on our part is needed to solve the problem by seeing the electromagnetic pattern and developing the technology from the concept derived out of the pattern, rather than expect everything to be served on a platter for us to see. The same is true of UFO occupants who seem quite happy to hide from us. They will even run back to their UFO and fly off in a haste if they see a human coming towards them. Not exactly the reaction certain rational scientists here on Earth would have expected. Indeed, a number of SETI scientists believe an alien arriving to Earth should already be making an effort to contact us.

The reality could be quite the opposite.

Not only that, but there are UFO reports showing what appears to be an effort by someone to teach us certain aspects of the flying technology, as if we can figure out how it works despite our level of technological advancement. Perhaps we are already advanced enough to work it all out for ourselves?

More a reason for a God in the past to teach us the principle of love before we get to that important moment in history when we can travel to the stars. God can't be arriving constantly and checking things to see when the right time would come. Start early and get the concept out through well-constructed stories. Start preparing humans for what will be the inevitable reality when they venture out to the stars to meet up with other intelligent and technically-advanced aliens.

So what if these people of the stars are choosing not to communicate with us? Who cares. Well, most of the time that is (leaving aside some UFO abduction cases, and those stories in the Bible)! The cone of silence could well be on us and we are sitting here thinking why we can't find them and talk to them, and then we assume they don't exist because the evidence isn't available or absolutely clear. No wonder scientists have not figure things out yet in this area. It doesn't take a genius to work it out. It is probably because we are not imaginative enough to see other possibilities, and we are still unable to learn certain concepts of how to live harmoniously with other living things on our planet and not just our fellow human beings. We still want to apply non-recycling approaches to getting what we want, and we choose to interfere and fight with others to get it. We constantly feel insecure and think others will be bad or invade our territories. yet we don't seem to realise that people just want to be loved and have what they need, and we need to share the resources and make sure they are sustainable and can be created again and again to maintain permanent peace. If we can't do that by now, then what chance do we have of meeting up with the other people from the stars in a way that gives them confidence that we have properly learned the principle of love? Just look at our own backyard and the answer should be clear. Our environment should be clear evidence of this. With so many trees getting cut down, allowing so much greenhouse gases to get into the atmosphere from our activities, and letting Earthly species become extinct while we make profits as well as choosing to grow our artificial trees we call skyrise buildings for the same purpose (if it isn't a case of "How big is my penis?" by those males who instigated their construction). Not exactly a sure sign that we know how to love all living things on this planet. So how likely can we show our love to the aliens if we should meet up with them? Not likely. If we cannot treat the fish in our plastic-infested oceans with kindness and the ability to allow the fish to grow, learn from its environment, and let it be happy without us interfering with it all the time, either for food or as a waste dump for all our selfish activities, then what is the point of the aliens coming down to talk to us? It is far better for us not to meet up with one of these aliens who do know a thing or two about the principle of love. Aliens will probably have a good reason not to interfere with us, at least not directly. It makes sense to do so.

Let's face it, we still have no idea what the principle of love is about.

As a result of this insight, sometimes it is far better for us to be open-minded and curious. Don't ignore the things we do not understand or cannot see with our eyes. Fortunately, there are some open-minded scientists on this planet with a solid background in science to consider this God connection compared to those conservative and highly rational scientists who prefer to see everything with their own eyes (and even then they may still doubt what they see). Together with a sense of curiosity, being open-minded should be seen as a noble quality for all good scientists if they wish to become great scientists — the ability to consider other possibilities beyond what they can see with their eyes has the potential to advance science.

Therefore, on the basis of probability, we cannot discount the extraterrestrial origin to this God-like entity coming down from the sky. No need for supernatural explanations for God. Just some common sense from science knowing the universe is expected to be teeming with intelligent, and technologically-advanced, life.

It is easy to dismiss the Bible stories out of hand as just story-telling from creative people. Truly open-minded scientists and historians would be cautious not to ignore them all. We are an ignorant lot and there is so much we don't know about our true past and the Universe around us. It is probably best to bring together what we know from the stories in the Bible and relate them as best we can to known geological events in history and human development over the last 10,000 years, available archaeological evidence, and what is possible using science in the 21st century and beyond. For who knows what we may discover along the way. Perhaps there is something else we should consider in our long history. Better to be prepared and aware of such stories in the Bible than to leave them out completely and miss out on an important aspect of who we are.

The story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden

Okay. So now we have the first story in the Bible to discuss. It concerns two seemingly innocent-looking young humans who appeared in a garden somewhere on Earth, known as the Garden of Eden. We can safely assume this is probably in the region known as Mesopotamia, since the story originated here.

As the story goes, God created two humans. If we are referring to the true God of balance and making up all solid matter, then you could argue that this God did create the humans. In fact, it created all solid matter. It is the paradoxical energy oscillating as it does to create a sense of solidness in matter that constitutes our bodies and everything else in the Universe. Eastern mystics prefer no word to describe this thing and instead use paradoxical statements as the best way to explain the God concept. Interestingly, electromagnetic energy making up matter just so happens to be a paradoxical entity through its properties. For a while, this energy had got scientists confused until they decided to accept two different pictures of how this energy behaves. If we were to use this energy to represent God, you could say that this energy created two humans. Otherwise, it would have to be a play on words as part of an effective story-telling tool to start things off. There has to be a beginning, so why not mention God at the start of the story with amazing powers to "create" the Universe and eventually life itself? Let there be light in the universe as it mentions might be a coincidence. Far easier for simple-minded folks in those Biblical times to visualise than any scientific talk of electromagnetic radiation. But if religious people think God is the thing that comes down from the sky and appears in a localised form (usually human-like), there is a problem. For then we have to resort to possible technological solutions, such as cloning techniques, some genetic engineering, or simply a sexual encounter with humans that led to the "creation" of these two offsprings. It all depends on how you define God.

Beyond that, it would appear that we have two lonely humans wandering through the garden. Or to be more accurate, the man came first, and the woman appeared soon after using the rich stem cells in a portion of the man's ribs to quickly create a woman. It almost sounds like our entity of the sky was using technology to create a couple of humans through genetic engineering. Who knows how it all got started.

No signs of human parents to be seen anywhere. Or is God the father? Either these two individuals were orphans, or perhaps they are related to God in some way? Who knows.

The order in which these humans appeared should not matter either (at least not in today's society, and certainly not for a true God). Like we don't treat a newborn boy who comes out first any differently than a girl who comes out second or vice versa, balance should always prevail for both genders by treating both equally. Just as God does not discriminate, so too should we do the same with the genders. It just so happens the Bible tells us that it was a male who appeared first followed by a female, but this could be like asking what came first, the chicken or the egg? Someone or something has to start first. The choice of a male to start the process could well be a decision by the story-teller to start from this point (just like the Universe must have a beginning given the linear way most people tend to think and find easiest to understand when looking at the world). Or else the person was influenced by his own gender to think males should be the ones to start first. Or was it because God's first encounter with humans began with a male human? Or did God's voice and eventual appearance with one old wise man influence the initial gender for the storyteller? Or did God decide to perform a genetic experiment and made the decision to try a male first before introducing the female (perhaps a case of trying out the draft form first to see what it looks like before releasing the much improved Version 2.0 female later, which would explain why a number of males today with their partners might say the women represents their better half)? It probably does not matter.

Now we have this couple, apparently named Adam and Eve (but religious scholars can always find deeper meanings in the names. And why choose these names? Might as well be called Jack and Jill), who were permitted to live in what was effectively a paradise. More specifically, a garden. Hence the name, "garden of Eden". Not the cactus variety of desert garden of some countries are used to in today's climate. Rather one with lots of edible and productive trees and shrubs given how much emphasis is made of food in the garden (e.g., figs, apples etc.) as if it was made by the hands of some handy gardener(s). Sounds rather familiar this scene. Are we referring to the great gardens in Mesopotamia? As we will learn later, the gardens contained many fruits. Not likely to be a rainforest as the trees grew figs as needed by the couples later to grab some large fig leaves as we shall see later. Sounds more like we are referring to a temperate zone with its numerous fruit trees as if giving a sense that the garden could have been artificially grown by someone in a temperate region of the planet. As the story was only told in the Middle East, it is probably in the northern hemisphere somewhere between northern Africa and India. Certainly has all the hallmarks of relating to the Middle East given that this is where the story originated. And does this mean the couple were vegans? At any rate, whether the couple knew this garden was a paradise would require them to do some comparing with something else. Apparently they did not know other than they took it for granted that they had this garden to do as they pleased (well, they were not described as gardeners, but ones to enjoy the fruits of someone else's labour). It did not seem the couple ventured far from the garden. Or else the garden was very large with no perceivable boundary. But why travel far? A paradise is all humans ever need to survive and be happy on a plot of self-sustaining piece of land, as God thought. There is no indication from the Bible that the couple saw the place as anything special or needed to travel far to gather their sustenance. But if they ended up being bored by the garden, they could easily walk a great distance to reach some kind of boundary. Apparently not. It looked like the couple had no experience of a different environment. About the only other thing we can glean from this story is that we have a very big garden given that they do wander around a lot and don't mention anything unusual beyond some prescribed boundary. Too big for the couples to wander off and reach the very edge of it (or could be a metaphor for the Universe we live in and how it can be seen as a "garden", especially around those habitable planets surrounding Sun-like stars).

As paradise was seen as a garden (due to the abundance of food and effective shelter, and plenty to keep the couple entertained and playing games), we can safely assume trees naturally grew in relative abundance and were mature enough to bear fruit. So the trees must be of relatively large size. Talk later of the couple hiding from God suggests that the trunks of the trees were quite large (with the trees themselves well-established) and/or there was a prevalence of thick bushes in various parts of the garden. And where there are plants, there should be water. Makes sense so far. As far as the food was concerned, the humans only needed to be vegetarians by sticking to a diet of eating fruits, grains and any other plant-based material. Not as bad as it sounds (so long as Eve had knowledge of herbs and cooking to make the food more tasty and provide variety), except God had one rule for the humans to follow. Sounds simple enough. Surely the couple could not stuff up this basic request from God, right? You've been given this paradise to do as you please, so what more do you want? You should have everything you need to be happy. The humans occupying the garden should have no need for anything more. Be grateful with what you have got. So, as the rule was explained to the couple, God would allow the humans free reign in the garden on the proviso that neither one eat the fruit of the forbidden tree. And it seems God pointed out the tree in question for the couple to observe so that there would be no confusion. "You see it there? Good. Now don't eat from it." as we can imagine God might say. Still, this did not stop Eve, the one who was most restless and curious and the first to be tempted sometime after God had left, from trying one of the fruits from the forbidden tree. And she would do it when God was not around just to see what was so special about the tree.

Perhaps there is a clue as to why God created man first before a woman. The needs of males are simpler. Some food, a bit of wine, a place to sit down and relax (give him a remote and let him watch football) and he is as happy as Larry as they say, and that's just about it. Men usually don't complain or get too creative in trying something different if they have everything within easy reach. Once males have what they need (and are not aware of the existence of females, so they won't realise what else they might need), there is nothing more males ever want. However, bring in a woman and before you know it, the male has to work harder, usually to satisfy the needs and wants of the female (understandable as she must create a comfortable nest to support her offsprings). But the female in question was not a woman. No indications of a marriage between them and consummated in the garden with a sexual romp. It was like the couple had no idea the purpose of their reproductive organs, or why one had enlarged breasts and the other had this thing dangling between his legs. They never saw each other as having any other purpose or benefit to each other, sexually or otherwise, except as friends, someone they could talk to, and play some relatively innocent games together just to pass the time.

These individuals were very innocent-looking, almost child-like in their thinking. Nothing clicked in their minds to see each other other than like two children playing in the garden.

Despite having everything the male could ever want, he appeared to be not a very strong-minded individual with adequate knowledge to know what's right or wrong. He would be susceptible to Eve's persistence to do something he knows he shouldn't because God commanded it. He must have thought about it. Probably not much to think about if the knowledge wasn't there. A case of the 1984 movie "Dumb and Dumber" starring Jim Carey and Jeff Daniels you might say. The decision must have arrived quickly for the male given enough pestering from his female companion. His conclusion was eventually in support Eve in her decision to try out the fruit in the sense that he couldn't quite see what the fuss was about in not eating any of the fruits in the garden. Of all the trees, why would this one sacred tree need to have special treatment? And there are enough fruits on this forbidden tree, so what's the harm in eating just one. Or instead have a nibble in one end. Who would see what they did?

If you think this sounds like a test from God, you are not alone. In psychology labs, tests have been performed on children to see how they behave when left alone in a room and given something tempting such as a cake on the table for them to look at. Even if just one child is in the room, the result at the end of the experiment is always the same. Basically, how it works is that you tell the child not to eat the cake. The rule is clear. The child has heard. The child can see the cake, so there is no mistake about what item we are talking about. You leave the room and the child stays in the room, with the cake nearby to tempt him/her. However, no matter how simple and clear this rule might seem, it is inevitable, given enough time, to see the child eat a small portion of the cake when he/she thinks no one is watching and then tries to squeeze the cake together to make it look like he/she has not eaten it. Not long after, the adult returns and asks if the child has eaten the cake. The child will look elsewhere and then naturally deny it. Tries to show that the cake is still there. When the adult looks at the cake and says it is a bit too small, the child will claim an invisible friend had eaten some of the cake (trying to rely on creativity to find any old reasonable explanation in his/her young mind). A clear sign of lack of knowledge and experiences to come up with a better explanation. Keep pressing the issue and eventually the child will cave in and admit he/she has eaten some of the cake even though the child was expressly told not to and yet he/she made the decision to eat it because he/she couldn't see what the fuss was about. It is just a cake. Well, maybe. But what if the cake was poisonous? Would the child still eat the cake? Perhaps made by the hands of an alien chef and certain ingredients are completely incompatible with the human gut system. Without explaining why, it is very easy to see how humans behave when there is a temptation put in their way and don't understand why it exists and the importance of leaving it alone. It is not yours to have should suffice as an explanation. Learn to live within your means. Go without and maybe you will be rewarded later, Yet some people do not listen. Very naughty. Well, the exact same scenario was taking place in the Garden of Eden. In Eve's case, she was a little on edge about trying it out at first. She kept walking past the sacred tree and kept ruminating in her mind about what was so special about this tree. At first she was not sure if she should go ahead with it. Then she came up with the idea of getting support from someone else to say it is okay to try it. So she approached Adam. Adam wasn't terribly forthcoming with the support at first. Probably told her they shouldn't. Should we not listen to God? Yet the nature of God in the eyes of Adam and Eve was not a strange entity. God looked like any other person, but perhaps a little older and wiser. God did not seem to be a monster of some sort. And anyway, how does God get his sustenance? From this sacred tree perhaps? Who knows? It was clear Eve couldn't hold back much more. But she wanted to get Adam's agreement to make it seem alright. Eve needed to tempt her companion Adam to try the fruit, or else she probably wouldn't. It took a while to get to an agreement as they walked past the tree at various times. She must have been bored by the garden and wanted more, and she kept walking past the tree. Her creative mind must have been working overtime, and she couldn't understand why God was denying her the opportunity to at least taste the fruit. What's wrong with a little nibble on the fruit? Or even a lick on the sides? No one would ever know, right? If she could get Adam to, at least, agree to do it too (apparently he was prepared to do the right thing if he was left to his own device, but now he had this woman to contend with and he hadn't learned enough to know what the consequences might be if he caved in to Eve's demands). He could have said no, but he too became tempted by the idea introduced into his mind by the female. He too could not see what the fuss was about over one fruit on a tree. Surely the tree will grow a new piece of fruit and everything will be back to normal. Or maybe the tree was loaded with fruit? In which case, it would have been a bigger temptation. What's the big deal in having just one fruit to share among the two? All Eve needed was to hear Adam say it is okay with a little peer pressure from her to gain his support for what was effectively her decision, and at the same time perhaps give her an opportunity to point a finger at him should she get into trouble with God. Geez, thanks Eve! After much pestering, Adam eventually agreed (probably explains why the IQ of men tend to go down quickly in the presence of females in order to agree with just about anything the females want), and both of them quietly crept up to the holy tree bearing the forbidden fruits. They looked around. No sign of God to be seen anywhere. They must have started to feel guilty in making their decision. Doubt was slowly entering their minds. However, a little extra tempting came from the snake that just happened to be lying in the tree. A convincing case was made to the couple. eventually the couple grabbed one of the fruit and promptly ate it. The fruit was described as an apple, or something along those lines. A fairly earthly-looking fruit. Nothing exotic as far as we can tell.

So now they have finally tasted the fruit. Naughty as they were, they could have got away with it considering they did not die from from eating the fruit. More importantly, it would be hard for God to know for sure what had happened (unless God was like the psychologist in the laboratory already watching the children in the room from a distance). Plenty of fruits on the tree would easily cover up the evidence of the couple's wrong-doing so long as God was lousy at maths and couldn't count (and wouldn't have the time to spend just to find out), and the couple could keep quiet and acted normally like nothing ever happened. Certainly God did not immediately notice any changes to the tree on his arrival. Surely he must have walked past and yet saw nothing out-of-the-ordinary. He simply didn't notice anything missing. Well, that was good for the couple, so long as they could remain simple and innocent in their thinking and behaviours. However, what the couple discovered on their own and had not anticipated was the effect the fruit had on them, and they couldn't act normally because of it. It looks as if their brains were not large enough, nor did they have the sufficient time, to digest all the knowledge and use it in a way to help get them out of any new problem they were seeing, let alone use the knowledge to achieve good things for all living things. They experienced for the first time a sudden acquisition of so much knowledge that the first thing it did was make themselves self-conscious of how they looked to each other. No doubt they were naked. Probably a testament of how warm it was in the garden, as if we are in the summer time in this temperate zone of the planet. Yet it never crossed their minds to think why, other than the fact that it was very warm in the garden, so no clothes were needed. Indeed, they had never thought about this very issue of their appearance until now. They were always innocent and child-like, even right down to not knowing the purpose of their sex organs. Even despite being well-developed at the moment of eating the forbidden fruit, they would not be bothered by their appearance or what the purpose of their reproductive organs might be. However, now the forbidden fruit had changed all of this forever. It made Adam wonder why Eve's breasts had started to look more appealing to him. Even Eve was having thoughts about that thing dangling between Adam's legs and wondered, "Hmmm, I wonder what that might feel like". Well, instead of having sex and finding out (and even use the knowledge of natural contraception), this excess knowledge was apparently too much for them. They were afraid. Not knowing how to handle the emotions and bodily behaviour on seeing each other, the couple decided to pull off some large fig leaves from another tree and found a way to place them on their bodies to preserve their modesty and so avoid playing around with each other in more intimate ways. We now know the garden had plenty of fig trees, and fairly large ones at that too. Nice large fig leaves to help with covering those intimate regions of the body. But unfortunately, the couple's decision to hide their modesty from each other revealed another problem for which neither of them had thought about before — they would lose their child-like innocence and could not act child-like in the presence of each other, and to God. They were worried that if they saw each other naked, strange bodily reactions would take place, and they would have trouble controlling them. Then surely God would know something was up with the couple (not necessarily in a literal sense). They could not apply enough imagination to visualise something else to stop the behaviours from appearing. Not trained to think of something else just to control their bodily behaviours. So the simplest solution was to wear the fig leaves (and hence the origin of clothes, not just to keep warm, but to hide those things that might affect our bodies in unusual ways). Out of sight is meant to be out-of-mind as the old saying goes. And if it is not in the mind, the body does not follow with its own instinctual behaviours. Unfortunately the decision to do so turned out to be their undoing too. Because when God returned, the couple did not know how to lie to God and take the risk to see if they could get away with it (well, not likely if God was a psychologist watching the experiment at a safe distance. You might as well be honest with God, right? In which case, why did the couple do it anyway? Again too child-like and with limited frontal-cortex development to think through the situation and see the consequences of their actions). Seriously, it wasn't really hard to figure out. God did not even have to count the fruits on the tree to discover anything amiss, or watch the couple fornicate like wild rabbits in the garden. Although it would probably be preferable to fornicate under the circumstances and remain naked because at least you had a chance to relax those sexual urges and look more normal at the end of it. Even if God caught them in the act of making-love, one could argue that they had reached an age of sexual maturity and physical readiness that the idea just suddenly popped into their heads, coincidentally at the same time for both of them. So what are they to do? Might as well let them find out what it feels like. In which case, God might be totally understanding of the situation. But that was not how it went. The couples thought the fig leaves would solve all their problems, especially those relating to their strange sexual urges and so avoid having sex with each other, which kind of worked. Well, let us put it this way. How strange would it be to be talking to God and Adam stood there with an erection each time he glanced over at Eve? Whereas Eve would be showing her puffed up and pointy nipples. Unfortunately for the couple, it also revealed something else. God must have known as soon as it (or He) saw the fig leaves hanging on the bodies of the two humans (if not their sexual organs getting stimulated). The couple must have done something wrong and against God's commandment. But in case there was an innocent explanation, such as the couple wanting to play around by wearing these leaves just for a bit of harmless fun or perhaps they had accidentally brushed past each other and touched their intimate regions and suddenly felt something that they needed to explore, God asked them why they covered themselves. The couple were not very good liars. If only the couple came up with a brilliant story like the snake had forced them to eat the forbidden fruit while their hands were tied behind their backs by the snake (well, the snake did have a big enough brain to talk in the language of the couple, and it had limbs prior to God punishing the snake by later forever forcing it to slither on the ground, so surely it could manipulate the environment). Just throw in some evidence of broken twine or rope at the base of the forbidden tree and some marks on the wrists of the couple and God would probably have to believe the couple's story. The words of two people corroborating on each other will probably go down better than the word of a snake, unless God was hiding among the trees and had recorded the whole scene to show the couples later about what had happened. Unfortunately for the couple, they couldn't handle the knowledge to be like God and use it appropriately for positive purposes, let alone lie effectively enough (not that it would help them a lot either if God was already testing them), and not just to find a plausible explanation to get them out of their predicament. Nor did they have the imagination to find at least one good explanation to escape any punishment from God either., let alone control their sexual behaviours. As a result of all this, the truth came out faster than you can say, "OMG!" and this led to the fall of man from God’s grace and banishment from paradise.

Then again, it is always possible such a story was designed by a crafty and highly creative story-teller (in this case, none other than a man named Moses) to explain certain things about humans (and, by implications other living things) and, as such, could have absolutely no bearing on any real event in history. For example, the story-teller could be trying to explain to others the role of men and women in society had at the time (and whether, controversially speaking, it should continue to this day). Certainly in those days after the Adam and Eve story was told, men had to work harder to get back into God’s good books (usually on their own or together with other men, by becoming religious leaders and having their religious discussions). And if they were lucky to do so and have worked hard by being pure, these men may receive some more insights from God. However, not for women because of what Eve had allegedly done (or are men implying the story is based on a real event in history in order to go to all this trouble to punish women?). Only men were permitted to follow this path to God. And the way to do this was for the more religious men to avoid the seven deadly sins, including any form of temptation from women (hence the belief in Jewish religious leaders never having sex, and why celibacy for priests had to be maintained in modern Christianity by those Jewish men who couldn't let go of their traditions).

So what happened next?

Eve, now representing all women, would be punished for disobeying God’s rule by bearing the pain of childbirth. However, more was to come. Men would also add to the punishment on women by making them less important in areas involving decision-making and in not receiving religious knowledge pertaining to the nature of God for which men believed they were entitled to receive because of being the first one to see and/or hear (unless they were suffering a mental illness to hear voices in their heads) God or be made in the image of God as if God favoured men only (was God a male? Or should we interpret this to mean all humans were made in the image of God because God is a humanoid being, and one that looked not too dissimilar to us at the time given the fact that Adam and Even were not afraid to approach this entity in the garden). It would explain why in Jewish and Christian religious communities the males had to be seen as the dominant gender and head of the family unit, at least for religious reasons although it has expanded into other areas, such as in business and politics in general, far more than it should. And all because of one story in the Bible.

Then again, if the law of balance was applied correctly to this story, the man should be equally to blame because he was the one who agreed with Eve's decision. If he knew it was wrong, he should not have been influenced by Eve, either by appearance after eating the forbidden fruit or what she said before eating the fruit. It is as simple as that. The analogy can be seen in human sexual behaviour. Men are too easily tempted by the appearance of females when they look pretty, but why? If he uses his imagination to think of what he sees in another non-sexual way, you don't have to think about sex at all. For example, if you imagined a female as like a spider ready to eat you alive if you come close, then a male would quickly control his sexual urges and look elsewhere, especially if he wants to preserve his own life. In nature, female spiders are the most dangerous. Even if you could get one in a trance and quietly sneak one in without her noticing, it will not take much for the female spider to wake up and see the male as just another piece of meat. If human males want to survive long enough, you can easily create thoughts to make you re-think your behaviours and way of looking at the opposite gender. Thus, even if the females were naked, men should be able to ignore it and walk away, or just act normal. As for religious knowledge, there is no reason why one couldn't train a women to "think like a male" and be able to have robust and rational religious discussions. Why should women be denied this opportunity? It is only because of the Adam and Eve story that has sway certain men to think in a certain way, and it has been going on for a long time. It is amazing how one story can affect the lives of the females and make males think it this male-dominated way for so long.

It looks like some men have not received the memo from God that it is just a story, right? The real knowledge to learn from it is much deeper than merely treating women differently and with contempt. It has nothing to do with the gender or how we should treat women differently. Or else men should be treated just the same as women if the story is to be relied upon as even vaguely true and based on some kind of reality. Both men and women must take responsibility for their actions when they agree on something. One cannot just blame a wrong-doing on the person who first instigated the idea. As soon as men and women agree on something, the responsibility is shared. So don't treat women as second-class citizens.

Good news! Today, the role of the genders is slowly changing. Balance is returning to human society. Admittedly at a very painfully slow rate as we get held back by certain male-dominated religions and the men who follow them and control various parts of human society. These are the ones acting as shackles on the feet of humankind and preventing us from reaching our true potential and a more balanced society. But one day, hopefully very soon we will no longer have to follow the traditions of modern-day Christianity and Jewish laws, or to accept the outcome of the story of Adam and Eve as the only way society should be and how the genders should be treated. Of course it does not have to be this way. We should have grown up by now, taken responsibility for our actions, and be able to forgive any shortcomings of the genders. If we think about it, greater gender balance in society can only help us to get a closer experience of the true nature of God in all its glory. God is true balance. God does not discriminate. It is something for which one wise young man from the Middle East born to an apparently virgin mother was already aware of and trying to bring balance by teaching at least one woman to think and communicate in all the logical and rational rigours of religious discussions like a man, while showing the men that women can do all the things that men can do (short of trying to write one's name in the snow with one's urine, as men can do more easily).

Further details about this interesting young man and the woman at the centre of his teachings and his aims will be discussed later in this page.

Nevertheless, there is another message to be learned from this story. God, or whoever created the story, if it is based on real life experiences, is teaching us that whilst the goal of a perfect life can seem alluring and almost within reach, living a perfect life all the time has its pitfalls. The most obvious one being that when humans are constantly served on a platter everything they want and need (in the case of Adam and Eve, it was the garden and all its food), they tend to get lazy, eventually bored, and soon they look for something else as if searching for meaning to their lives. If there is something tempting placed in front of them, eventually they will think they are entitled to have anything they want and cannot set limits on how far their greed and wants can go. It does not matter how much their needs are met by the garden or if an authority (such as God) tells them whether something is not meant for them. Give it enough time and humans eventually ask why. They want more. They think they can have things that are denied to them. They fail to see the reason for not breaking the rule or cannot accept the way things should be as needed for the Universe to hang together properly and with absolute balance. Soon humans break the rule and try to become God themselves, and without understanding why or the problems associated with being another God. There can be only one God. A lonely God, which is why the garden of the Universe was created to amuse the entity and feel part of the Universe and in the lives of those living. But you can't have more than one God. It is because this other God can do things that are not in keeping with the principle of love or maintain absolute balance. They don't know how to use the knowledge of a true God for the benefit of all living things and the Universe. Humans are faulty creatures with so much to learn to become perfect. But while the knowledge is not there, humans are more likely to be selfish and have whatever they want when given a perfect life and have access to what they think they are entitled to. Humans will use other knowledge to satisfy their own selfish wants and desires. And they won't stop on getting one thing. They will acquire everything they want and before you know it, much of life on Earth could be destroyed by the selfish needs of just two human beings. No longer can humans be seen as God. They will be seen as doing the opposite, with bias and a lack of love. What humans do not understand is that they are not ready to be a true God. No living thing can, at least not over a finite period of time. We have to work at it. And only then do we approach and better understand what it is like to be God, but never can we be God.

You see, the Universe cannot afford to have just one selfish creature going around doing whatever it likes. There has to be limits in what we want. Somehow there has to be a control on the behaviour as nothing alive today can ever be perfect. This is why, in reality, we are told that there can only be one God. And given how limited our brain capacity is and not knowing the absolute right way of doing things, we need to be aware of the consequences of our actions when we don't apply the principle of love properly and to learn from those consequences. We must see ourselves as children in the Universe constantly trying to learn why we are here and to become better and more loving individuals before we can ever hope to influence something else in a way that is closer to being like God. Even if we are given the complete knowledge, our brain is not big enough and fast enough to process all of it properly. We are not mature and smart enough to know how to use the knowledge wisely for the benefit of everyone and all living things. The only way to become more mature is to establish goals and work towards them, and learning along the way. Then we can learn a thing or two about how to apply the principle of love in a better way. Without these goals of a meaningful and positive nature to work towards that ones that will eventually benefit everyone in the long term (what those goals should be is something each human must decide for him/herself and how feasible it is to achieve them in their lifetime), humans start to become what religious people call "corrupt". They will do anything to have what they want and quickly lose sight of what is right or wrong, or the genuine reason why they are here in this Universe. With no goal to reach for and a plan to achieve a positive outcome, soon the corrupt people forget the principle of love and what it means to help people and other living things. They choose not to achieve something of great benefit to everyone. It does not matter if certain actions can affect other people in a negative way. A corrupt person will usually not listen and improve his/her ways if told the actions are not right. The corrupt person will pursue the actions for his/her own personal gratification and without due regard to the feelings and harm caused to others when the corrupt persons is getting what it wants.

In summary, the story suggests that all living things are capable of becoming "corrupt" when living a perfect life after a period of time, and eventually they do. It is seen by God and certain knowledgeable people as an inevitable outcome for all living things unless we set a boundary (e.g., do not eat the forbidden fruit, or the cake when we are told not to eat it) and we learn to create goals for ourselves to work towards in order to get a better understanding of why we are here, what our purpose is in life, and how best to help others and all living things, while at the same time acknowledge our inherent limitations and need to improve ourselves before we can ever be called God. And when that will happen, we will never know. The Universe is a big place and there is much to learn. You can never assume you know everything. So be a child, and think of yourself as a person willing to learn new things. If we just learn to be modest and realise our need to be continually learning (and even be prepared to relinquish power by teaching others to become their own leaders), then we are capable of getting closer to God. Otherwise, a person without worthwhile goals, especially those designed to promote love, and instead choose to live a perfect stress-free environment where everything is offered to him/her on a platter will eventually fall into this "corruption" trap, including the harming of other living things just to get the thing the corrupted person wants.

This is the thing. Corrupt people cannot accept the true reality behind God's kingdom and why we are here. In this kingdom, the only hierarchy should be established between God and the people. No other hierarchy should be present, not even between living things and humans. In human societies, everyone are leaders in their own right when they learn something and become experts in their own fields, and they all should be treated equally and with respect no matter what. No one human is greater than another. That is why we treat people who are experts in cleaning things (i.e., "the cleaners") the same and with respect (and should be paid the same) as a person who has been trained to become an astronaut. We only need to look at history during pandemic periods to fully appreciate this work. We all need everyone to play their part in their own way, no matter how menial or simple it may seem, as all this contribution helps to get us closer to this ideal world for all to benefit. A kind of true Kingdom of God.

The same is true of living things that provide the air we breathe and the food we eat. How can one see this contribution, even if seen as not work (the aim of all living things is not to see things as work but something we can enjoy and find it easy to do with the skills we have) due to way the living things excrete as a natural by-product, as any less than a human? One creature's shit is another creature's important resource. It is what helps creatures to survive through the contributions of other living things. Even an animal excreting waste is a valuable worker as it provides the nutrients to feed the biomass in the soil and with a little water, plants grow and become healthy and show an abundance of fruits. We need to have these things at the same equal level as all living things if we are to survive for as long as the Earth exists and protect our natural environment.

For the corrupt person, this is not the case. There must be a hierarchy, but not between the person and God. It is only between the person and everything else. He/she will raise his/her own importance and control beyond anything else. At first it is to the level of a king (or even try to be God) in their own contrived kingdom. The person will believe, from this position of power, that receiving anything is perfectly fine, and even to treat others in any manner no matter the level of harm it may generate. It does not take long before greed sets in. It will be seen as perfectly acceptable. Trying to accumulate everything for the shear personal enjoyment by any means possible (even illegally) is certainly not outside the normal realms of these people. If corrupted people cannot immediately get what they want, they will be upset, chuck a tantrum like a child, and eventually employ any devious means of getting what they want (even to lie, or kill others). Corrupt people sre prepared to do this because they will think this is perfectly normal and the only way to be happy. It does not matter about everyone else. In reality, they are never truly happy in the deepest sense. They know something is missing, but they do not know what it is. They just need to acquire as much as possible to find out. They will keep trying to grab more things from others and the environment to get that false feeling of temporary happiness, false sense of self-importance, and false sense of security and self-belief that others will admire them, but deep down they are getting lonelier and less loved with each passing moment.

In addition to this, the corrupt person will see no other purpose to life other than to enjoy the here-and-now moment, thinking it is all for them and they do not have to work for it, or even to help others to achieve certain goals before sharing in the benefits that those goals may bring. Without a purpose, the moment of death is usually the most frightening and hardest to accept and understand for the corrupt person because he/she cannot imagine or see the hidden patterns of the universe showing the cyclic nature of life and death and the re-birth expected of all living things as a normal part of how this universe works and for it to remain in balance.

So while the issue of death is inevitable and at some point will enter the mind of the corrupt person, the corrupt person will do everything to prolong life by any means. Or else believe his/her own "gods" being worshipped will revive the person at the right time to continue his/her corrupt ways.

Furthermore, the corrupt person will also believe that there is nothing after death. So why not continue the corruption? Indeed, the corruption can help to get the mind of the corrupt person away from thinking about death. And if there could be something beyond death, to accumulate the wealth and have it brought into the tomb on the naive view they will come back to life and continue with their wicked and selfish ways. Unfortunately for corrupted individuals, the Universe does not work that way.

It is clear that there is something missing in the corrupt person's life, but he/she is unable to see what it is or put a finger on it. However, by then, the person has generally gone too far. The likelihood of reversing the corruption may be too great. Unless the person can wake up from this warped view of reality (he/she must make the decision, and no one else can influence them), the planet really can't afford to harbour even just one corrupt creature given its endless desire to get as rich as possible, maximise power, and acquire everything.

Now if this interpretation about the consequences of a "perfect life" for all living things is correct, then it would have important implications for humans today. As we shall see later, there are enough humans showing a level of corruption that is affecting life on Earth (including over-population and having what we want and get rich). Not even God would be pleased if it were to return today and see the state of the world as we are leaving it to our children.

Okay. So we can see from this first Bible story the likely existence of two humans allegedly roaming around in some great garden nearly 8,000 years ago. Not surprising. Archaeological scholars know that there were great gardens in Mesopotamia back then. It is altogether possible such a story could have some truth. Unfortunately, the only difficulties scientists have at the moment are this thing called God and, of course, in not finding the archaeological evidence to prove the reality of this story other than the fact that there were great garden in the Middle East.

Never mind. We can at least gather some more insights about who or what this God is from the story itself. According to Genesis 3:8:

"They heard the sound of the Lord God as He was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden."

God is walking? Fascinating. God doesn’t fly (personally or in a UFO) or slither around, or suddenly materialise like we see in Star Trek. That should help us to narrow it down a bit about who or what this entity is. In other stories, as we shall see later, sometimes it is a mysterious voice that can come out of nowhere (now where is that tiny sophisticated drone hidden with its built in speakers and transmitter?). It is easy for scientists to think God is a hallucination as if some people could be suffering schizophrenia. However, we do find a passage in the Bible of one old man (i.e., Moses) who has allegedly seen God. No longer do we have a voice coming out of nowhere, but a shapely figure that humans can look upon and say exactly what it is. And so far, Moses isn't exactly running away from God. Indeed, his reaction isn't suggesting an entity of unimaginable shape and appearance. Seems more like just another person. The same goes for Adam and Eve. Indeed, each time the two humans meet God in the garden, they did not get frightened by its appearance. If this is true, then this makes God kind of real and physical and seem, well, rather localised into a certain predictable and physical form with legs and potentially a face that isn't too dissimilar in appearance to ourselves (either that or it has to be something so cute and cuddly that no one can be frightened of it, like Yoda in Star Wars). And it is not a particularly large physical form at that too.

However, there is a problem here. Any localising into a physical form means the rest of the Universe is not under the strict and continuous control of the true God. By becoming a physical being, it effectively cannot be everywhere at once and in control of everything as needed to maintain balance and keep matter solid and the energy flowing to move things around and create the planets and stars, and eventually life. Just to hit the message home more clearly, we should expect primitive and evolving life to exist on other planets throughout the Universe. These creatures would surely do things that may not be in keeping with the principle of love. Given the size of the Universe and how many planets there are with these sorts of primitive creatures (mainly those that do not travel to the stars), we do not see God instantaneously going to all these places to provide guidance to the lifeforms. For example, we certainly do not hear God say in front of Moses, "Now today's lesson you shall learn on! It appears I must duck away for a moment to do something, but I will be back before you know it." God on arriving to Earth to influence some humans seems to have plenty of time to focus its attention on humans for a while until it feels comfortable that perhaps things might change for the better. Then God disappears. And yet today we are still harming other living things and God has not returned to put it all right and teach humans some more lessons in the principle of love. So what about those life-bearing planets not under the control of God while it is preoccupied with humans on Earth? It seems highly unlikely a true God is a physical entity that we can see and have a well-defined shape and general appearance. It would have to be a "god" with certain abilities. The kind of abilities that has got primitive lifeforms to consider this entity as "God-like", and indeed why not call it call "God" in the primitive language of these lifeforms as the best way to describe this entity?

How interesting?

In that case, this has to be the first clearest hint from the Bible that we are dealing with a "god", not a true God.

Okay, let us continue.

The idea of God "walking through the garden" at the end of a hot day (it would explain why Adam and Eve were oblivious to the idea of wearing clothes and for a while to their own nakedness) might suggest a human-like entity in physical form. But any kind of creature with legs can literally "walk". At the very least God has evolved to emerge from the oceans to walk on land. That seems to be a given. Furthermore, it seems like God does have some understanding of the principle of love by figuring out why living things are forced to evolve and move onto land. And it has a decent brain in order to communicate. There is an intelligence to be found with this God. No further information can be gathered from this basic quote other than the fact that subsequent and more wiser old humans have not run away from God even when it was sighted. Then we see in Genesis 3:9–10:

"But the Lord God called to the man and said, 'Where are you?'

The man answered, 'I heard you walking in the garden and I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid.' "

That is interesting. Note how the couple were not saying, "...I was afraid because I saw what you look like and you look really hideous and ugly, with sharp teeth ready to eat me alive and all the rest, so I hid."

The reaction of Adam and Eve to the voice and later the sight of God walking through the garden and eventually speaking to this mysterious entity in a direct face-to-face sense is not responding in any negative way about God’s form or appearance. Far from it.

As we have alluded to earlier, the behaviour from the humans is not suggesting that God is a creature of unimaginable body shape and/or size. Definitely not a monster like Godzilla, or an alien with bizarre features such as a big head, pointy ears (hello, Mr Spock?), large eyes and everything else (as we tend to observe in very creative Hollywood films of aliens, or even certain small and thin UFO occupants observed in modern times by some humans). We can safely assume God's appearance is remarkably similar to us. Perhaps we should not be surprised? There are UFO reports of occupants that do look remarkably similar to us, perhaps with only a few minor differences. As an example, the Antonio Villas Boas UFO abduction case gave considerable details of the occupants appearance, noting some minor differences (e.g., height, colour of hair, a slightly more pointy chin and triangular like face with slightly larger, slanted eyes and head). But if you asked the creature to wear a pair of dark sunglasses, you probably wouldn't notice anything unusual. It would look like another human being walking down the street. That is probably why the sight of the humanoid was not enough to cause the abductee to be horrified by the aliens' appearance.

Does this mean we have a group of people out there who look like us and is responsible for influencing us to follow the path of love and balance in these biblical times? Are these people meant to be the spokespersons for a group of more diverse alien species out there that are trying to guide newcomers evolving on a planet on what to do and give advice on the principle of love in preparation for what will eventually be an encounter with other alien civilisations once we develop the technology to meet with these people of the stars? Is this what it is all about at the end of all this work?

One thing is certain: the story shows quite clearly how the couple in the garden of Eden stayed put, even with all the knowledge they had acquired after eating the forbidden fruit and realising their own nakedness (and presumably the true nature of God and why it looked the way it did), and eventually answer God’s questions. Sounds like God is a fairly ordinary looking bloke (or was it a woman?). Probably not unlike the small, vulnerable old man in the Wizard of Oz playing with his big and almighty technology to make himself sound grand and all-powerful to the people, but in reality he is just like you and everyone else. A simple and vulnerable individual. Nothing out-of-the-ordinary. Given the reaction shown by the couple when God arrived, this is looking more like God has the same physical shape in the body and probably looked not too dissimilar to Adam and Eve.

This is the thing about UFO occupants — they are all invariably humanoid in shape. Not only that, but we can also safely say that there are no strange octopus-shaped aliens, or creatures with two heads, flying in their own versions of an electromagnetic spacecraft. On closer inspection of the reports, it is possible to identify around three main groups of humanoids visiting the Earth: the short, big-headed and usually large-eyed grey-skinned creatures with unusually thin bodies (as if they have removed or simplified their digestive tract to reduce mass when travelling great distances in interstellar space unless, of course, food supplies on the home planet are in limited amounts, which begs the question of where is this recycling work to build up the food supplies?) and tend to be quiet or communicate very little with humans; another similar short-statured and thin-bodied group with more exotic looks such as very big ears and eyes and with webbed feet and hands, and who tend to be unusually playful and extremely curious; and a third group that looks remarkably human-like (some have been described as Scandinavian in appearance with white hair and skin, and being tall and thin). We know that the latter group of human-like aliens do communicate a lot more with humans during an abduction episode. Knowing these UFO cases do exist, maybe it is the latter group of people who have decided to make direct contact with humans? Whatever the truth, we probably should not be astonished by this discovery. Evolution and the desire for animals to survive and find solutions to difficult problems when pushed by the environment and/or their predators will always see the development of two arms to manipulate the environment and a technology at some point, and, of course, two legs to walk around for mobility. Any more limbs and the energy requirements would be too great. Nature has a way of minimising energy usage and getting rid of redundancy and stick to the essential limbs that do the job just as well if not better.

Being humanoid in shape while manipulating a technology and its environment may not be a fluke of nature or oddity, but rather a common outcome of evolution on any planet given enough time.

Can we be sure God is humanoid, possibly human-like in appearance? About the only closest thing we do have to indicate a possible human-like form of God, assuming it is of a physical nature, is revealed in Genesis 1:26:

"Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.' "

This quote is obtained from the NASV version of the Bible, updated in 1995. Note the word "image". This is essentially another way of saying a "copy". Now this could be significant. It seems reasonable to see this term as referring to the physical shape and potentially how it looks. Nothing else would make sense. We have to see this as dealing with the physical attributes that we can observe and not just the ability to communicate in our language. So if this is the case, then this strongly suggests God is human-like just as Adam and Eve were (perhaps with a little more knowledge, and a few sophisticated tools at its disposal). And just to add another layer of complication to this issue, we see that God is made to look like it is not alone (i.e., "Us"), according to the NASV. Are we to infer from this the possibility that multiple physical human-like entities of both feminine and masculine types are acting together as God to influence human affairs along the right path, and that there is a spokesperson for the group who is prepared to make direct contact with a select few older humans? Or else the only other explanation is that we could be dealing with further bias from whoever wrote the original text containing this quote. The original authors of the Bible have been written by men in the early stages (and no, God did not write it down as some Christian fundamentalists might like to believe) and, perhaps in modern times, by some women who are trying to balance the situation within the Bible through a sense of inclusion of all genders (i.e., the word "Us").

Whether God is a real entity of humanoid form, the presence of such an entity can either be seen as either a great story-telling tool from the writer(s) to help grab the interest of simple-minded folks to listen and learn new ideas through captivating and imaginative stories in biblical times, or it represents someone real coming down to affect certain events on the ground. For a lack of a better word, we call it God. In reality, a true God should not have a name. And any localised form of a God (in the humanoid form) should not be seen as a God. Rather, it should be seen as a "god" with some sophisticated abilities, quite likely technological in nature.

Whatever is the truth behind this mysterious entity, what we do know is that there was a place in Mesopotamia where the gardens were great and luscious at around 8,000 years ago. Sure, there are other places where a forest and plenty of food could exist and humans may have been roaming around to benefit from the fruits on the trees. A classic example would be in the rainforests of South America or in central Asia. However, there is something artificial about "the garden" and the regular appearance of this mysterious "God" in the Middle East over the past 10,000 years to suggest that the story may have occurred in the Middle East. And there were fig trees, which is not a common sight in large numbers in a rainforest. The one place scientists have found to strongly support a land containing many great gardens, mostly created by the hand of humans (but one cannot discount the possibility that a God may have come down and provided a helping hand to create a garden of its own in one corner of the land and allowed two humans to live in it) is in Mesopotamia. If there is any place such a story could have occurred, this would be as good as any.

7,000 to 7,500 YEARS AGO

The Black Sea made its grand entrance on the Earthly stage at around this time when the Mediterranean Sea rose high enough to break through a wall of rock and soil of several miles in length. It is also quite feasible, being in an earthquake-prone region, for movements in the Earth's crust to have contributed to the collapse of the wall by weakening it. The latter remains a matter of speculation as there is no geological evidence left behind to explain how it happened. What we do know, however, is that the water was definitely rising and the Black Sea did get suddenly formed roughly 2,000 to 4,000 years after the Mediterranean Sea was created.

The location for this great flooding to form the Black Sea is rather interesting because it is believed this is the place where the fabled story of an old man named Noah, his few "chosen" people (mainly family members), and various animals he rounded up from the region, had survived a great flood thanks to his remarkable effort to build a large vessel described as the Ark.

Did such a story take place in reality? Or was it another great way for humans to teach the next generation of the importance of taking with them certain things to help survive major calamities, as well as the benefit of behaving in a good way and with love (if you want to be warned by someone of an impending natural disaster heading your way, either in a dream or through God)? Apart from knowing there was a flood leading to the formation of the Black Sea, we can only go by what's mentioned in the Bible. A dubious source? Perhaps. Still, the story has not changed for thousands of years by essentially Jewish men who are noted for using their memory to retain an exact copy of the story, word-for-word, without embellishment of any kind. As Father Dwight Longenecker, a pastor from South Carolina, U.S.A, has observed among men in the Jewish community, he stated:

"A strict memorization of the Scriptures is part of the Jewish tradition. Jewish boys even today for their Bar Mitzvah have to memorize parts of the Scripture and are checked for it word by word. In the first century, with the scarcity of manuscripts, boys were taught to memorize the entire Old Testament, and to recite the accounts of the history of their people word for word."

Knowing this fact about Jewish men (and there are many ways one could have created a story to teach the principle of love to ordinary folks, but strangely not so when people began introducing God into the story as if there is something very important to take note here), the story might be worth a mention, with the potential for some historical importance. Indeed, if the story had been made-up by some creative genius within the Jewish community as a means of entertaining simple-minded and less-educated children and adults alike for the sake of making a bit of money on the side (or get a free feed) and yet still managed to pass on an important message of how to survive disasters (relevant to today and in the future for any civilisation), the story would have changed many times over and been embellished with ever increasing and more elaborate scenes and entities and by now we would know the story would be impossible to believe. Or why not change the story completely? Leave out God. Seriously, who needs God to be in the story if there is a concept to be learned? It only adds confusion to the listener. What shouldn't change is the concept, which in this case involves the principle of love and the importance of preserving the life of certain animals in the face of an impending natural disaster, right? Apparently this isn't the case (so long as we ignore the latest "over the top" Hollywood movie starring Russell Crowe having its more than fair share of the creative license applied to the story). The great effort to remember this story by many generations of people in the Jewish community in its original form, together with God, suggests that there could be some reality behind it (whether the more rational scientists like it or not).

If one could accept this story as having some basis in truth and related to an actual event in history, there is a more disturbing element to the story that we must acknowledge: God. Yep, it has made a come back to haunt humanity once again, and certainly one of the most difficult to understand. Why mention it if people can create a story that does not require God to be in it? Just say the old man had a dream and the dream became reality, just coincidentally at a time when a flood was heading his way. Unfortunately, this is not how the story went. In fact, scholars are once again forced to consider this God issue. It is almost as if God had to be in the story because there was a risk people will not believe the story unless there was an explanation of how the old man knew when to build the boat. But in adding this mystery entity into the story, it does make some people in modern times wonder who is this God, and how could it possibly know when a disaster was coming? How do we explain it? We could always go the totally supernatural way by depicting God (and its various "angels" designed to help God by being the eyes and ears of God and even to assist certain humans in achieving certain things) in all sorts of fancy CGI graphics as we have seen in Russell Crowe's Noah. Unfortunately, this will only confuse the matter further (a bit like all the names we give to this mysterious entity from different human cultures and languages, let alone different civilisations throughout the Universe that will learn about it and try to figure out what it is, and before you know it, we are all lost in our ways). Or for greater realism to this story while considering the possibility of a God guiding humans along the right path (given how many times this entity gets mentioned in the Bible), we could picture this story as someone out there in the sky wanting to influence human affairs.

Sounds too incredible?

Or we could imagine the old man suffering a form of schizophrenia. Possibly. However, for the disaster (i.e., the flooding) to be a genuine event, the timing to save himself and his family makes it unlikely. Also, the story first began to be taught after the Black Sea was created, and in the Middle East of all places. Apart from someone who must have known and helped the old man to coincidentally build a boat at the right time, it is hard to imagine the story as not relating to this geological event leading to the formation of the Black Sea. But if we were to accept this mysterious entity as somehow affecting the decision-making process for the old man, ordinary folks would find it hard to imagine this God in a story. Unfortunately, the old man can only use the God excuse for how he did it. How strange, and convenient? So why do we have God in the picture again?

If we can give this story and God in the Bible some credence, then it would appear that this old man called Noah probably lived in a highly fertile valley at the time. Everything was available in reasonable abundance to the point where he and other men (and women) probably never had to venture far (sounds familiar after learning about the garden of Eden and the story of Adam and Eve). There was little need to see the world beyond the mountains that bordered this valley. There is also a sense that this old man probably lived his life, together with his wife and children, in relative independence from other people in the valley. Perhaps this was at odds with the other people, as if he did not "fit in" with society. Or was this because of Noah's concern for the direction in which his fellow humans were heading, which in a valley that had everything people needed wasn't to his liking? He may have seen a lot of corruption and bad behaviour that wasn't promoting the true principle of love and people were getting greedy and wanting more. If this was the case, it would be understandable if he chose to keep away from the people as much as possible. Interestingly, the people did not appear to interfere with Noah's life. A rarity for corrupt people considering non-interference is one of the principles of love we should aspire to but not something the corrupt person would follow. At any rate, a point came in his life when Noah suddenly decided he would build a rather large boat while the days remained sunny and the land was relatively dry. A strange decision you might say? Actually it was. The decision came almost right out of the blue. No one was prepared or expecting this kind of decision from a human. Crazy you might think? Perhaps. One can imagine the people living in the valley had thought so too. For as far back as people could remember, it seemed impossible for a rainy period to be big enough to flood the valley. There are even indications that some of these people watched Noah build his Ark and laughed themselves silly at the sight of a man who they thought had lost his marbles. Why build a boat in a place where they did not expect a flood to come? Yet something convinced Noah to do exactly that. Luckily for him, he saw the goal of creating his boat as a necessity, and could see he had all the resources he needed in reasonable quantities to build his boat (probably revealing more about the abundance in the valley, including quite likely lots of trees and vines, and certainly not some kind of miracle of God instantly building the forest out of a desolate region for Noah as we see in Russell Crowe's movie. Yet something had convinced the old man to pursue his ambitious plan to build the boat all the way to the end. Why? What gave him such confidence to pursue this extraordinary and seemingly unimportant goal? These are very good questions to ask. And probably the hardest to answer because we have come to the one and only sticking point in this whole story. It is the part where things do get a little concerning for the rational scientist (especially when the evidence remains lacking). Well, according to the Bible, the old man claimed his inspiration to build the boat came from a mysterious entity called God. As we are told, God came to him one day or night and spoke to him and recommended that this is what he should do. If it was a hallucination, it was a particularly powerful one. Otherwise he probably would have ignored it, especially if he had some rational skills (which apparently he did given his skills in building a formidable and effective vessel to protect his family and the animals he would carry inside). Yet something drove him to do what he did, no matter how incredible this God-human intervention might seem, or outrageous and totally out-of-character his action would be viewed by other people, including his own family.

One could argue that Noah had suffered from schizophrenia given the voices he heard in his head. However, he isn't the only old man in history to have heard voices from God as we shall see later. And to somehow know when a disaster would come in a very timely manner? Now this is the kind of story that should be on the famous U.S. TV show "That's Incredible!". It would be a true ratings success.

It seems reasonable to say that Noah was definitely not experiencing any form of mental illness. Just a dogmatic and persistent thought in his mind that he had to build "the boat". And, of course, he put his trust in this mysterious voice. Fortunately for him and his family, it turned out to be a wise thing to do under the circumstances.

Speaking of sticking to what he had to do, it is good to see that Noah was not influenced by a woman (e.g., his wife) not to do the work. He must have learned fast from the Adam and Eve story. God could not have been more proud of this man even if other people thought he was bonkers.

Whatever we might think of this God, among the words spoken to Noah was the idea that he should bring into the boat two of every animal. Obviously the animals had to be of opposite genders as Noah was not noted as being an expert in cloning and genetic manipulation techniques should the animals be gay or something else. Better to keep things relatively simple for the poor old man by keeping a balance in the genders. In terms of the numbers of animals allegedly brought onto the boat, this would be described in the written story, perhaps with a little creative license, as "all the animals in the world". Well, as we all know, the man's understanding of the world probably extended to no more than 50 kilometres from where he lived. The valley itself must have been isolated and contained everything he and his family ever needed. So maybe this is just a play on words. As for the idea of preserving things (in this case the animals), this is an interesting concept. It is one of the most important lessons any civilisation in the universe can learn. Even by today's standards, we already know of the upcoming calamity of global warming and the extinctions that are taking place. Surely it would be prudent even in the 21st century to create our own technological Ark to save the DNA material of those animals (and plants) expected to disappear from this planet. And what about in the much more distant future when the Earth eventually disappears as the Sun grows bigger and we must survive elsewhere in the universe? Should we not take some animal and plant materials with us to help continue evolution? Or better still, start to become a vegetarian. Much easier and less energy requirements to grow plant-based foods. In the case of Noah, we can see how he wanted to preserve as many animals as he could, but surprisingly no evidence of plants as well. How odd? If this disaster was meant to be a global event, surely the plants would get wiped out too. Or are we to infer from this interesting little insight that the impending disaster would not be as widespread as we have been led to believe in the story? In which case even this tiniest of detail in the story could be rather telling and may help us to understand the true nature and extent of the disaster.

Sounds about right to consider the disaster as relating to the formation of the Black Sea.

Whatever we might think about all of this (it sounds like this God must have the technological tools and gathered some pretty amazing information to know what was about to happen to this fertile valley and told Noah at the right time to prepare), luckily for the old man he listened and followed God's word right down to a tee. A particularly wise decision no doubt as it turned out the time of the flood was during an unseasonally rainy period lasting many days and nights. Those people living in the valley and carrying on with their wicked ways thought this was just a particularly wet period and would soon pass as it normally does. Or if a few did feel a sense that perhaps Noah could be right, some may have tried to convince Noah to allow them to get onboard the Ark. Noah refused as he and his family, together with the animals, remained high and dry inside the boat.

Suddenly the wall of rock and soil separating the Mediterranean Sea from this ancient deep and fertile valley broke. Great timing, since Noah had just finished building his boat. Makes one wonder whether God played a pivotal role in the weather patterns leading up to this unusually rainy period. You know, the cloud formation that God comes masquerading in on its arrival to Earth, and the link between clouds and rain? You are starting to get the picture, right? God must have one almighty piece of flying technology to affect the air pressure in the air and allow clouds to form. And if there is enough moisture in the atmosphere, why not a bit of rain too? It all depends on how long God wanted to hang around to keep the rain coming and soften that wall down until the structure was sufficiently weakened. At any rate, the once impossible possibility of a great flood was fast becoming a reality as the waters from the Mediterranean Sea began rushing into the valley with great force and tremendous volume. A real testament of how little people knew of the wider world around them. In fact, when the flood did arrive, it would be very easy for Noah and his people to think the entire world was engulfed in water. Certainly the story gives us this impression. We have to say these people in the valley didn't travel very far and had no idea what was about to hit them.

Then the floods came. The people on land quickly drowned. With the Ark resting on top of a small hill to protect it from the full force of the water coming in from predominantly one direction and so allow the rapidly rising and turbulent waters to surround the boat and lift it off its moorings, those "chosen by God" (via the old man) including the animals were kept relatively safe and dry. Things naturally got a little rough as the turbulent waters tossed and turned the boat in various directions, but eventually the waters would settle down and the wet weather subsided.

For allegedly up to 5 months (according to the Bible) the boat either drifted aimlessly or was pushed around by the flow of the water. Again this reveals a little more about the purpose of the boat, which is clearly not designed for sailing the winds to get to a destination fast, but rather to save the animals and selected humans and survive for a period of time on the newly-formed sea. To the simple-minded folks on the boat, this could have been seen as another great test in determining how faithful everyone was to God in delivering them to safety, wherever this might be found. When land was eventually sighted again it would either be on the new shores of the Black Sea or the boat could have been pushed up onto the slope of a large hill as the waters receded. If it happened in the latter way, the boat would have came to ground somewhere in the country we call Turkey.

As one would expect, Noah didn't come out of his boat straight away. Sensible man (not the sort to be hallucinating things). The ground was too wet. He waited at least another month. Combine this with the period of rain that allegedly lasted more than a month and another week or so prior to the rains and we must presume Noah was in the Ark anywhere between 7 months and perhaps up to a year. That's a long time. It would certainly make some scientists wonder how big the boat would have been to hold enough animals and the food required for the journey. And could one man or even with the help of some people around him build the boat? Was there a great forest in the valley at the time? Or did Noah receive any help from human-like but very strong angels from God to build the Ark? And how long would it take to build such an Ark? The truth is, we really don't know.

Or perhaps the reality is that there wasn't that many animals in the first place to gather — only those that lived in the valley. If this is the case, the boat could have been a whole lot smaller and more easily built by one man and his small family. The boat could easily be smaller if the time frame for the whole journey was not in months or a year, but perhaps a few weeks, and with less food to carry around.

Whether or not such a story is true (it has certainly not stopped many Christians in modern times from searching for the evidence in the hope of ultimately proving the existence of God), some scientists are starting to question how likely this story could have occurred, as well as who or what God is given the way this mysterious entity keeps managing to crop up more than a few times throughout human history and at the right times to warn certain individuals of natural and cataclysmic events (the Bible has examples of this occurring at certain times). Perhaps these events are nothing more than a mere coincidence? Or could there be something special about this mysterious God?

This would not be the last time God made its presence known to humans. The next significant story to survive the ages and to suggest that God exists (but not the only time God would appear to humans) was when another old man was approached by this mysterious entity and asked to save his own people from a ruthless Egyptian pharaoh just before another natural disaster would take place. This old man would be named Moses.


The story of Noah has been recorded on a clay tablet dated before the earliest Old Testament writings of the Book of Genesis were uncovered. The deciphering of a clay cuneiform tablet found in an area known as Mesopotamia and first shown to curators at the British Museum in 1985 reveals the same flood story right down to the idea of building a large boat to survive a great flood and carrying two of every animal as well as the family of the boat builder. The only difference between this earlier story and the one told in Genesis is that the boat was originally round and it was made with large ropes held together by bitumen, whereas the version in the Book of Genesis added the existence of a God that had influenced the man to build the predominantly wooden boat. It looks like the two stories are almost certainly the same but with slight changes, probably due to the fact that some people who listened to the original story were asking questions about how the builder could have known when to build the boat at the right time just before the flood hit the area. It just does not make sense to be a true story. It sounds too perfect "my ass" for the old man to know precisely when the disaster would happen. Even the adults were choosing not to take the story seriously. Therefore, a decision was made by whoever the storyteller was to add the God connection.

The translation of the tablet was finally achieved in 2009. Irving Finkel, the curator in charge of translating the clay tablet, was astounded to learn about the similarities with the Genesis version. More importantly, the earlier story gives more details about the shape and how the boat was constructed. As Finkel said:

"It was really a heart-stopping moment — the discovery that the boat was to be a round boat."

The exact date of the flood is not mentioned in the clay tablet. If the original story does represent a true event, it could have happened any time before 1,700 B.C.E when the tablet was made (which is more than a millennium prior the first Old Testament writings of Genesis were unearthed). Archaeologists are finding some evidence of a giant flood plain in Mesopotamia around 5,000 B.C.E. However, the story could easily have dated to the time when the Black Sea was formed.

Engineers are currently looking into the original story as it gives remarkably clear details on how to construct the boat, right down to its size and type of materials used. There is an effort to determine how the vessel could have been built.


In the effort to digitally preserve the Dead Sea Scrolls—the ancient religious manuscripts discovered in the Qumran Caves in the West Bank near the Dead Sea—further details about the design of Noah's boat has been revealed. As part of Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library project, a laboratory established by the Israel Antiquities Authority have digitally scanned the religious manuscripts using different wavelengths of light. In the visible spectrum, it was hard to see any additional text, but outside the visible range the scientists observed additional words and text fragments near areas of the document that were burned. After translating the text, scientists learned that the roof of the structure sitting on top of the boat was closer to being a pyramid in shape. This piece of detail is supported by the Greek version of the religious manuscripts known as the Septuagint, and also by a medieval Sephardic Jewish philosopher named Maimonides who became one of the most prolific and influential Torah scholars of the Middle Ages. He too came to the same conclusion that Noah’s Ark had a pyramid-shaped roof.

5,000 - 7,000 YEARS AGO

World human populations reach around 50 million nearly 7,000 years ago (i.e. 5,000 B.C.E).

At around this time, ancient people visiting the island of Malta in the Mediterranean Sea were initially greeted with a natural environment abundant with vegetation and a reasonably fertile soil. However, by around 5,000 years ago (i.e. 3,000 B.C.E), the societies on the island effectively denuded the fragile landscape of its natural vegetation, allowing severe soil erosion to rob the land of its productivity. Soon many humans living on the island had to go through periods where agricultural yields became unpredictable and costs to produce food went up. To deal with the problem, some people decided to establish a hierarchical structure, mainly by certain rich and powerful leaders in order to control the remaining resources. The farmers became less educated and worked tirelessly for a few powerful extraverted and rich people who had knowledge of the outside world and used whatever methods available to control the information in order to maintain power over the working class people. Those who did not do as they were told would experience extreme poverty (or even killed by the authorities). Then the people of Malta had less and less produce to sell to people in Italy and the rest of Europe. People on the island relied less on imports from other countries. Life was getting harder and harder. It wasn't long before people turned to religious sculpture and art where the people began worshipping the gods, hoping the foods would be plentiful again by the next season (sounds familiar?).

As starvation and death became a common sight in Maltese society, the people showed a great religious obsession with life and death.

Small stone statuettes from the island showing images of obese human figures as a sign of fertility were common. The large numbers of such stone artefacts gives an indication of the obsession these people had with religion when the environment was already seriously damaged.

To make matters worse, a cult society with a religious hierarchy consisting of male priests at the top appeared in the final stages of the society's collapse around 4,500 years ago. People were made to feel compelled to honour the dead, placing the dead in burial chambers and caves, following many religious rites, making statuettes to link the dead with animals and human obesity, and expending immense energy to build temples at the request of the priests. All this in the hope the gods would be appeased and give the people the food they needed.

Soon the death toll rose and the need for people to remove the older bones to make room for the dead became paramount.

Then suddenly something changed. Not long after all of this religious activities, all the temple building suddenly ceased, the priests lost power, and a new religious practice began. By around 4,000 years ago (i.e. 2,000 B.C.E.), the old religious culture disappeared in favour of cremation burials. No more statuettes of fat women would be created from this moment on. It is as if the people finally saw the light and decided to start a new life.

Today, the people of Malta live on a hilly relatively treeless island with very little fresh water and a land seemingly inhospitable for farmers to grow anything. The people rely more on fishing as the essential source of food, the tourism dollar, and food imports from its neighbouring countries to survive.


German amateur mountaineer Helmut Simon and his wife discovered in September 1991 the remains of what has not become known as "The Iceman" or Ötzi as many local people in the area would affectionately call him. Believed to have lived in central-northern Europe through careful DNA analysis, the 159-centimetre tall iceman died in late spring or early summer while sheltering behind a rock in the treacherous Alps nearly 5,300 years ago (i.e., the Neolithic, or New Stone Age period). So dangerous is this part of the world that Mr Simon fell to his own death in October 2004 near the spot where Ötzi was discovered just when the weather suddenly turned bad.

Other people were also caught in the storm and had to be rescued by helicopter. Such bad weather is believed to be how Ötzi came to his end.

Analysis of the body suggests the Iceman died at the ripe old age of 46 years. Evidence of arthritis can be observed in the lower spine, right knee and ankle suggesting that he did a lot of walking through the mountains and probably carried some heavy items. A look at the contents of his last meal suggests that he may have been a shaman relying on medicinal mushrooms and grains for his sustenance, but he also ate red deer and alpine ibex (wild goat) to complement his diet.

Clothing consisted of a bearskin hat, three layers of clothing — leggings, loincloth and jacket made of deer hide and goat, and a cape made of grass and bast — and shoes made of bearskin soles, goat-skin uppers and grass to insulate his feet.

The man had been involved in some fighting with x-ray images revealing an arrowhead in his shoulder blade according to Paul Gostner and Eduard Egarter Vigl of the Regional Hospital of Bolzano in Italy. There is also a deep cut between the index finger and the thumb on the right hand. Histological analysis of the cut suggests the injury happened between three and eight days before his death. And DNA tests confirmed traces of blood on his clothing from four different people according to Tom Loy of the University of Queensland.

In trying to understand what had happened to the iceman, scientists have speculated on the iceman's life based on the emerging evidence. The first explanation is that he was a shepherd preparing for a usual trip over the mountains in early alpine springtime. Except on this occasion the weather turned nastier than expected and his health for such an old man was not as good as he thought. Maybe this was how he died.

However, the nature of the injuries found on the iceman is suggesting a different story.<.p>

Some scientists, notably Professor Walter Leitner of the University of Innsbruck, has given an alternative explanation as more forensic details emerged since 2003. The appearance of an arrowhead in the shoulder blade and the presence of a sharp axe the old man was carrying around suggests that he may have been a travelling trader and blacksmith dealing in recycling copper for local communities. Being a stranger, it is possible he may have got himself into a fight with young rivals and tried to escape by foot over the mountains where he hoped the rivals would not pursue him. This he may have succeeded. But on this occasion, despite his experience with the mountains, he may have timed it badly when the weather suddenly turned nasty and a blizzard ensured he paid the ultimate price. Either that or this old man was being pursued into the mountains by his rivals who wanted him dead but decided not to hunt him down after seeing how quickly the weather was turning bad. Or maybe these assailants did manage to catch the old man and saw his wounds and decided to leave him for dead when they saw the weather closing in and getting worse?

However, the latest forensic evidence is now pointing to a third and more disturbing explanation. It would appear that the iceman was not a stranger, but a local. Trace isotope elements in the teeth composed of strontium 87/88 and oxygen suggests he didn't travel further than 60 kilometres from where he was born. Combined with the deep fresh cut in his hand which could be a defensive move against a sharp implement and there is blood from four different individuals on his clothes and axe, it is quite likely the man was involved in a major fight between tribal groups in the area where he frequented near the end of his life (and probably defending himself at the time too).

The iceman may have succeeded in seriously injuring or killing whoever was fighting him given the amount of blood found on his clothes. However, he did sustain injuries of his own. Weakened by his wounds, and possibly being pursued by his aggressors, he could have decided to make a desperate attempt to travel over the mountains to return to his homeland only to be caught in a severe blizzard.

The truth is, scientists don't really know for sure. We have tantalising glimpses into the life of the iceman, but not enough to give a firm answer as to what really happened to him.


The first known evidence of writing has been dated to this time. Writing is essential to recording how much of something was available (useful for trade), as well as anything else worth recording. Most record-keeping was written on animal skin to mark how much or how many of something was available, who did what, and when is the best time to grow food and perform certain ceremonies (considered by some psychologists as a strongly L-brain activity compared to, say, drawing pictures, which is a more R-brain activity).

As the development of writing was taking place, the Bronze Age began at around this time (i.e. certainly by 3,000 B.C.) in the area we call Mesopotamia. Prior to the invention of bronze, people were still using stones, copper and obsidian as the materials for making tools.

Apart from the L-brain skills needed to develop effective writing and communication, this was also an inventive time (i.e. R-brain skills) when the lands of Mesopotamia were sufficiently fertile enough to grow enough food for everyone, allowing certain individuals to become specialized craftsmen learning to experiment in making fine works of art and practical everyday implements and tools using different materials.

It was at this time when certain craftsmen learned to combine tin and copper in their smelting furnaces to create a new metal called bronze. Bronze had the benefit of being a much harder material than ordinary copper and resulted in the development of more durable products.

At first bronze tools were made for the rich and powerful in society (the ones who thought this metal was the most amazing thing in the world). As time passed, the natural trickle down effect would take place as more people acquired the new technology or could purchase reasonably cheaply or barter for second-hand items made of the alloy. Otherwise, for very low costs that the average person on the street could afford, pottery made from clay and heated in a furnace still remained the best option for most people when carrying food and water or storing other items.

However, being rich can still bring out the worse in people. Some would be corrupted enough to seek ways of fighting for the riches and acquire more lands. Having some bronze metal to protect the rich and give others the tools to achieve the aims of the rich people became an essential ingredient for the military in the building of more sophisticated and tougher weaponry.

At the same time, there is evidence of some rich and power female leaders in Mesopotamia taking on a different path. There were enough of these female leaders willing to show more interest in directing others to create spectacular gardens. Also, watching the stars, understanding the universe, and in learning ways to stay young and live as long as possible, was certainly on the minds of these females. This tells us that not all rich people were bad or misguided. It just depends who is at the helm. If it is male, expect competition and war to be integral to the growth and expansion of some societies. If it is female, more co-operation and a willingness to share would likely be on the cards.

In the meantime, some of the writings eventually progressed beyond the mere recordings of quantities and the names of people to eventually retaining important stories and other knowledge told by the wiser people of the land.

4,900 - 3,000 YEARS AGO

Humans discovered the true usefulness of metals in creating very sharp and extremely tough cutting implements considered vital for hunting, protection, and in fighting other predators (one cannot ignore humans among the list of potential predators too).

In the early stages, metals tended to be of the soft variety (e.g. copper) resulting in many sharp implements getting easily damaged after repeated blows or for cutting. As more metals were discovered, human were clever enough to combine the right metals and add certain impurities like carbon to help increase their hardness and durability. From this came the first bronze tools at around 5,000 years ago, and later the much more favoured hardened iron at around 3,300 years ago. Now if only humans were smart enough to also resolve their personal differences on certain matters and all their survival issues without having to constantly fight other humans then perhaps this world would be a much more balanced and loving place. One of the major failings of male leadership.

Leaving metals aside, horses became the next animal to be domesticated by humans. The ability for humans to carry around large amounts of accumulated possessions, including weapons and enough food, over relatively large distances in almost any environment (except for the deserts where camels came into their own), and to overwhelm the enemy with their shear size and speed together with the skills of the rider to wield a sword and other weapons, made these animals a particularly valuable commodity (of which many had to be sacrificed too for the sake of greed and power).

As we can see, military wars still remained common at this time as some people tried to enjoy a sense of stability and greater freedoms in being wealthy and hopefully become powerful enough to turn into leaders of a society. For some, power and greed got to the better of them. As a consequence, leaders would see the advantages for themselves of expanding their own territories as an effective means of gathering more valuable resources without having to pay for anything or learn how to produce them, and at the same time destroy the lives of many people who fought the wars to make this happen for the leaders. For this to become a reality, metals were considered an essential part of the military arsenal at this time. Today, humans are no different except for the metals we use — we have now progressed to the use of titanium metals and alloys for jet fighters and missiles.


It is quite likely civilisations appeared well before this time. It is just that we don't know about them until archaeologists dig holes in the right places. For now, what we do know is that the world's oldest known human civilisations have been definitively dated to this time, and with some new evidence emerging of some civilisations appearing just after the end of the last ice age.

One might logically ask, "Why create a civilisation?" The answer may lie in the sorts of benefits people can receive while in a group situation and, as wealth increases, the least amount of effort (i.e., usually within short walking distances from people's homes — in the early 21st century, this has progressed to being within arms length of a computer when ordering products and services on the internet and watching them get delivered — wow, what muscular fingers you have there!).

Already we can find a variety of interesting products made with metals, mirrors (for people to look at themselves and discover how important it is to look attractive to a potential mate, or perhaps a little more questioning of their own actions might be in order), more variety of foods and spices from further afield and not just grown locally, hallucinatory drugs from various interesting new or familiar plants, new clothing materials (such as silk) or for better protection against the consequences of war (such as metal helmets, a shield and body armour), and other services (e.g. sex) to meet the needs and wants of a growing number of people at this time and so make life more bearable and enjoyable. The presence of these products and services meant there had to be trade. Trade is the means by which goods and services are exchanged, either in a barter arrangement or to devise a monetary system to measure how much one's contribution is worth to the rest of society and to get paid a certain amount for you to use to buy products or services as part of your goals to achieve something, which may be nothing more than to survive. Where there was significant trade in a confined area, the propensity for humans to develop a large civilisation would have been great. As for everything else needed to maintain a civilisation in terms of building houses, laying down the roads, and any other infrastructure needed by people, this would come naturally in order to make the trade easier to take place and give people more of a reason to stay in one spot knowing the products and services are essentially there whenever they wanted to walk outside the door to get them. In essence, a civilisation just makes life easier for everyone to acquire certain things.

At the same time, civilisations can have their drawbacks. People can become oblivious to what's happening outside the civilisations in terms of remaining resources and how the environment is treated by humans, let alone whether an invading army is preparing to storm the city. Perhaps some news might trickle through to a few people in the cities to think about the wider world around them and possibly try to convince others that something different should be done. Sometimes leaders within the civilisation may find ways to control the population in order to maintain power and the current way of life, instead of reassessing one's priorities and fixing the problems created by the civilisations through a change in the way of life and how things are done. Humans are,, on the whole, a lazy lot when they get rich and/or comfortable, or there is a lot of apathy when people feel powerless to change things for the better. Either we like things to be easy, or the authorities are too forceful in keeping people where they are and supporting the system no matter what. Changing things for the better is rarely an opportunity taken unless the problems are widespread and clearly affecting everyone. But by then, people may already be dying, fighting each other and those in power, or trying to escape the madness. In which case, that would be the time a civilisation might collapse.

Other than that, should the civilisations be sustainable, the advantages often outweigh the disadvantages. Hence the reason why people tend to congregate in the cities.

It is fairly obvious why a civilisation would exist thanks to trade, but it isn't the only way to create a civilisation.

The old classic approach of waging war can lead to the development of a civilisation in its own right. Crude, but effective. As people have discovered, getting into a group situation would often improve the chances of all the individuals in that group to survive when fighting against other humans. However, in periods when no fighting takes place, these fighting men needed other people to provide the food and various services to keep the "military" group alive and in return provide protection to these other people from marauding invaders. Hence the development of fences and later large, tall and very thick stone walls as a means of keeping the enemies outside.

Once a civilisation is formed, how long can a civilisation survive for? Or to put it another way, would the people of a successful and sustainable civilisation look for other reasons to maintain it, such as an opportunity to develop more of the R-brain activities such as the arts, solve grander problems that would eventually lead to science, and a chance to venture out to more distant lands to see what else people can learn about the Universe? Or does religion become increasingly dominant in people's lives as they search for solutions to the dwindling resources? Otherwise the only purpose for religion is when contemplating the issue of death, why we are here, what happens to us when we die, and is there anything else beyond what we experience and learn from our environment? Or do the L-brain skills continue to dominate a civilisation to continually fight on and conquer distant lands (perhaps because invaders are still fighting them, or there is a desire to acquire more wealth from further afield)?

Or could there be another reason?

Whatever maintains a civilisation, people living in that civilisation will want to have some kind of meaning to life, and hence a belief in the system that supports the civilisation. Otherwise without a belief, brute force and fear may be the only way to keep people working together under the rulers (also called dictators, and is a common theme among all communist countries) who have created their own beliefs and purpose in life for themselves (mainly to stay in power). In fact, this latter approach is something we see in ancient Egypt.

For the Egyptian civilisation that first flourished nearly 3,100 B.C. (or 5,600 years ago), great wealth and power were seen as the dominant theme for the leaders. Why? Certain rich traders realised they could live longer by being rich and powerful. At some point, a new belief was born to suggest people can live forever by being the richest and most powerful leaders and acquiring all they could from the known world just to maintain this irrational belief.

We can sort of see how this belief might come about.

Just imagine it. We have certain Egyptian traders getting fabulously wealthy. With all this wealth came the opportunity to relax and enjoy life. All the traders had to do was employ others to carry on the business while continuing to benefit from the profits. More time was freed up for the rich people to contemplate the grander issues, such as the moment of death, and to make some interesting observations. From these observations came certain common patterns, and with it, certain interpretations of what the rich people thought was required to overcome certain unwanted experiences (e.g., death). One of the observations to make its round in the early stages was how much longer these wealthy traders could live compared to ordinary folks on the streets (assuming these poorer people were not killed prematurely by others in terms of unexpected accidents, food poisoning, or some other means). It seems being rich by having higher quality foods and water, and having better protection from the sun by staying indoors for longer inside buildings made of stone instead of tents made of animal hide or basic wood, had some inherent mysterious powers of extending the life of human beings. It is almost like some god was favouring the rich and powerful.

It wasn't long before a belief was formed in the minds of the rich and powerful suggesting that the richer and more powerful you became, the longer your lifespan would be (assuming no genetic problems, which turned out to be a common problem for the pharaohs with their decision to do a certain amount of inbreeding with family members)..

Yet death continued in the families of these fabulously rich people. No matter how well preserved from the Sun one could attain to look young, how reasonably healthy, or how enormously rich one could get and surround oneself in expensive gifts, something was ending their lives. Was it the gods? So why not pretend to have other gods protecting the family?

Yet it made no difference. Somehow these people could not understand the reason for death and why it exists in the Universe. The fallacy of living forever must have hit home. Something else had to drive these rich and powerful people to believe in a new way of understanding what happens after death and so maintain the civilisation. At the same time, they had to convince the people working for them that there is a purpose for what they were doing.

How do we get around this thorny issue of death?

It looks like that at some point in the history of the first Egyptian pharaoh, the leader must have took it upon himself to believe that death is not much different from sleeping. Furthermore, as we all know, people sleeping will eventually have to wake up, right? In the case of death, we just don't know when. Until that moment comes, how do we prevent the body from decaying too quickly so that the gods will have the power to bring them back to life or enter some kind of a new afterlife?

The obsession in understanding the secret to immortality among the early Egyptian pharaohs meant that the belief had to be extended to not only include riches and wealth as a way of living longer in life, but also a means of preserving their bodies when they do fall into what they thought was the ultimate deep sleep of their bodies. So they gave other people what they needed (mainly food and basic shelter), and in return they asked the people to build the extravagant stone pyramids of Giza and other monuments and riches to help these dysfunctional leaders achieve their ultimate goal of travelling to the afterlife and being preserved for the longest period of time under heavy stone. There was something about the stone material that helped them to live longer, perhaps by staying out of the sun and looking younger than most other Egyptians.

This is one religious belief we all know about after studying the lives of ancient Egyptians and their leaders.

Of course not all people of a civilisation would follow this belief.

In other civilisations (and possibly in Egyptian life), sex may have been seen as a way to achieve immortality (especially among rich women) as it made some people believe they were younger (4), or felt younger when they could see they were being loved (and possibly live longer when they are happy knowing this) so long as men continued to perform and provide the necessary carnal pleasures these women sought. In some cases, women in these civilisations may work their way to become matriarchies (or leaders where the inheritance is transferred down the female line from mother to daughters). The men, however, will not complain as they are happy to perform work to produce the foods and have what they need and later provide the necessary sex to make the women think they will live forever young. Well, at the very least, it makes women feel happy knowing someone is there to see their attractiveness while the males can continue to "get it up" for them so to speak.

Or some people in other civilisations may simply see men and women as being equal with no need to create a hierarchy or an overarching belief system based on strange ideas about immortality or anything else. They would work together to achieve a common goal and later become leaders in their own right based on their particular area of expertise. And yet somehow see each other as vital to each other's existence. never was one or the other taken to the extreme of being God or the dominant leader of the group. An example of this is the group of Neolithic people living at the edge of a river on the plains of central Turkey nearly 9,000 years ago in a town now known as Catalhoyuk. In this society, men and women lived under the same roofs, performing similar tasks on an equal level, and were buried together under the floor at the time of death. In this ancient Turkish society, statuettes and paintings of a dominant woman with a wild seed lodged in her back and placing a hand on the heads of leopards together with statuettes of a dominant man or an animal with an erect penis or an association between a man with a wild animal, such as a bull, were quite common. Are these artefacts telling us women were important for agricultural activities and men for hunting animals or tending to livestock? One thing is certain, both men and women within this society saw each other as important and equal members as revealed from their elaborate artworks and way of life.

In other situations, civilisations may come and go often around large stone temples and monuments marking important seasons in the yearly calendar. This is vital information in terms of knowing when to sow seeds for food, or keep a record of the animals in the local region at a time when the land was plentiful and green as a means of teaching the younger generation of humans to hunt for these foods when they arrive. A classic example of the latter type of stone monuments can be found in Gobekli Tepe in Turkey. Actually, these Turkish monuments are interesting in that these were carved out by humans more than 10,000 B.C., or around the end of the last Ice Age. The monuments are particularly well preserved raising questions among archaeologists as to how they were carved with such craftsmanship when no tools have been found. However, one thing that has helped with the preservation was the decision by the people at the time to bury the monuments in sand perhaps to avoid them being discovered and destroyed by other humans. This discovery does suggest that human civilisations may have existed earlier than archaeologists think. We have the potential to say that the oldest human civilisations appeared around the end of the last Ice Age. More work is being carried out to determine how true this is.


Around 2,184 BC, the ancient "Old Kingdom" Egyptian civilisation plunged into chaos during catastrophic climate change.

Initial analysis of satellite images for the Nile delta region made by Dr Sarah Parcak of the University of Alabama suggested that something had abruptly stopped pyramid building followed by a significant collapse in the number of "Old Kingdom" settlements soon after the death of the pharaoh Pepi II Neferkare (reigned c.2,278 BC - c.2,184 BC). Why the collapse?

The key to explaining what happened has to do with the Nile River during certain weather conditions prevalent in Ethiopia and the temperature of the waters in the North Atlantic ocean at the time.

Running along the shores of the Nile River stretching from Aswan to the Mediterranean coast (where the Nile's river's delta region is located) lies a thriving agricultural centre. So important was agriculture to the Egyptians that many of them clung to the Nile River for their dependence on fresh water and in growing or acquiring ready-made natural foods. This includes capturing fresh and clean fish as well as making bread, which both foods are now understood to be low in iron given the amount of exercise needed by the Egyptian people to build the pyramids and tombs. The rich and fertile soils created by silt deposited along the shores and delta region by the Nile River during annual floods helped to replenish the soils with fresh minerals (including iron) and organic matter, which in turn helped to grow food to feed literally tens of thousands of people who worked for the pharaohs as tomb and pyramid builders, as well as the people who did the growing, gathering and supplying the food and all the various other services needed by the builders and the pharaohs. However the success of the Nile River to provide such fertile soils depended crucially on the annual floods to continue depositing rich and fertile silt to Egypt on a regular basis.

Then something in the environment would affect the annual floods from depositing silt for a long period of time around 4,100 years ago.

Thanks to the work of paleoclimatologist/oceanographer Dr Peter deMenocal from Columbia University and the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, U.S.A, the cause for this was likely to be a catastrophic change in climate. Dr deMenocal analysed drilled core samples taken from the Gulf of Oman downwind from Egypt and noticed a two to six times increase in the amount of dolomite (or sand/dust) deposited over the ocean to fall to the ocean floor as sediment at around 2,200 B.C. give or take 100 years (dated by analysis of carbon-14). The only other time this had happened was during the last ice age until about 10,000 years ago. This told Dr deMenocal there had to be a rather severe and century long drought affecting all of Egypt and other neighbouring countries.

Other drilled cores obtained from the "Old Kingdom" sites by Dr Fekri Hassan of the University College London would show a similar increase in the amount of sand during this great drought period compared to the long periods of silt deposits during the more prosperous years.

When faced with this evidence, it seems that the only explanation why the Egyptian system had collapsed was because the annual Nile floods for delivering the silt to the shores and delta region had significantly diminished for an extended period of time. It meant that rains higher up the river in the Ethiopian region were not falling as they should. As a result, Egypt experienced an extended and severe drought, and people faced severe food shortages.

Scientists believe at least 80 per cent of the water in the Nile River had disappeared during the great drought. The severity of the drought would also coincide with the collapse of around half a dozen civilisations in Greece, Turkey and Iraq.

In more recent analysis of drilled cores in the Great Lakes sediments of North America by Walter Dean of the U.S. Geological Survey in Denver and a Peruvian mountain glacier by Lonnie G. Thompson of Ohio State University and his colleagues, there is indication that the drought had a global impact at this time. But unlike the Egyptians, the native North and South Americans did have places to find or grow food.

Why was it so severe and widespread?

Dr deMenocal thinks he may have the answer. He believes the only way it can happen is for the natural conveyancing system of the North Atlantic for delivering warm water and with it a warmer and wetter climate to Europe had somehow stopped. The result was a mini-Ice Age in northern Europe and North America, and a severe and extended drought period in Egypt, northern Africa, Turkey and the Mediterranean coast.

The desertification of North Africa to form the Sahara desert was also thought to originate from these drought periods made worse by the fact that humans were extracting the last remaining vegetation from the land for their survival. It is just that the drought of 2,200 B.C. probably made the whole situation so much worse than expected.

A papyrus written centuries later after Egypt had recovered (i.e. in what is called the "Middle Kingdom") gave indications of how bad things got for the people of ancient Egypt. It made the gruesome claim that people had to eat their own children in order to survive the drought.

Further details can be found in the 2008 documentary The Fall of Ancient Egypt (produced by IWC Media Productions for the Discovery Channel).


Asian seafarers introduce the wild dog known as the dingo to the Australian mainland.

3,750 - 3,250 YEARS AGO

Another incredible Biblical story handed down through the generations by the Hebrews, and later written down in the Jewish Old Testament scriptures by religious leaders and eventually combined with the New Testament stories by ruling Christian patriarchs to form what is now called the Bible, would have its origins at around this time thanks to some rather persistent (yet very good) work by archaeologists, and the efforts of a Jewish Canadian filmmaker named Simcha Jacobovici to find scientific clues to help support the story and to bring all the available evidence together.

According to the Book of Exodus in the Bible and latest archaeological findings, it is claimed that sometime between 3,750 and 3,250 years ago (or 1,750 - 1,250 B.C, but more likely to be closer to 1,620 B.C.), the Israelites known as the Hebrews led by a man named Jacob moved into a small fertile area in the Nile delta (possibly at Avaris, the capital for a group of mysterious foreigners called Hyksos, as discovered by Professor Manfred Bietak of the Austrian Archaeological Institute). It is not clear whether the land was leased to them by the Egyptians. Nevertheless, the land was fertile enough and there was plenty of it to allow these foreigners to exist on an allocated portion (located next to where the city of Rameses would later get built by the Egyptians). The foreigners made full use of the land given to them. They grew a veritable abundance of food, and with a bit of variety to see Egyptian people get interested to try it out and buy the stuff. For at least 7 years, these clever foreigners soon developed some serious trade with Egypt and Greece. When Jacob passed away, his son Joseph took over the reigns of leadership where he soon became a powerful leader.

Now if only Joseph pretended to be rich by wearing ragged old clothing and lived in a modest home, and didn't say too much or show himself to be a leader (and carried out his trade in secret, delivering the goods overseas at night), then history could have been different. Just complain about how expensive things were in Egypt, how well the Pharaohs were doing, and kept to a "one child" policy (or certainly no more than two) and perhaps the rulers of Egypt — who we know did want to be ostentatious about their wealth and maintain their ruthless power among the people — would not have noticed anything unusual in these foreigners. The only problem was, in all that trade going on and ability to influence people by the foreign leader, it would have been hard to hide the fact that you were exchanging a lot of goods in return for money. And people were talking. Perhaps it should have been done in the cover of darkness just to be safe? And ask these people receiving the goods to keep it quiet. Pretend like they don't know where it all came from.

Unfortunately for Joseph, it was hard to hide how well he and his fellow foreigners were doing on Egyptian soil.

Well, this was the backdrop to what was about to befall the foreigners.

So, closer to around 3,500 years ago, the Egyptian pharaohs of the "Middle Kingdom" saw the rising wealth and power of the foreigners, not to mention, of course, their increasing population. Furthermore, these foreigners may not have agreed with the methods and approaches of the Egyptian rulers in achieving their wealth and preparing for the afterlife. Too many people effectively working under these rulers as slaves, and in many instances quite brutally too. At the same time, there was a fear brewing in the feeble minds of the pharaohs that a revolution was somehow on the cards. How anyone could think this was beyond anyone, but any such action, if found to be true, could undermine the pharaohs power and authority on the land. Therefore, it wasn't long before a policy was instigated by the ruthless Egyptian leaders. The aim of the new policy was definitely not based on the principle of love. Rather, the Egyptians would drown every Israelite male infant in the area to prevent a possible uprising against the Egyptian rulers at some point in the future.

Not everyone agreed with the policy. Someone had leaked details to Joseph and his people.

When news of the deadly scheme reached the Israelites, there was very little time except for Jacob's great, great grandson, a baby at the time, to be placed in a basket on the shores of the Nile river and left to nature to take its course.

Luckily for the baby, he was found in amongst tall reeds on the shore of the Nile by the daughter of a rich and powerful Egyptian pharaoh. Not knowing who it was owned by, she looked at the innocent and handsome baby. Did she think it was a gift from the gods? Or did she know the baby was an Israelite? It was probably the former since the Egyptian woman decided she would take care of it. Remarkably there were no signs of disagreement from the male Egyptian pharaoh (her father) over her decision.

Not long after, the Egyptians rounded up the remaining Israelites and forced them to work as slaves.

Over the next 20 years, the baby was brought up as an Egyptian with the knowledge of how to read and write and all the etiquette of upper class life while living a life of relative luxury.

Then one day, the young man emerged into the real world, looked around and tried to make sense of what he saw. He noticed how a group of foreigners, consisting mostly of Hebrews, were brought in as slaves and worked tirelessly for the pharaoh. More importantly, he saw how badly these slaves were treated by their Egyptian captor. Based on his understanding of the principle of love (his adopted mother must have taught him well compared to his adopted father and pharaoh), he knew this was wrong. Something had to change.

It is hard to tell at this point whether he realised this group of slaves was part of his own heritage and blood. Were there similarities in facial features? Or was it simply his upbringing from a more caring adopted mother had taught him differently compared to other males he observed in his surroundings, including the male pharaoh acting as his adopted father? All we know is that he witnessed the mistreatment and knew in his mind that it was wrong. For a young man seeing these terrible acts of cruelty by one human to another, he plucked up the courage and conviction to do something about it.

The day came when the young man decided he would confront the Egyptian captor after seeing more evidence of brutality with the slaves. Somehow a fight took place, the Egyptian was killed (perhaps it was nothing more than a firm physical push by the young man that caused the Egyptian to fall over and hit his head on a rock). Now the young man knew he could no longer remain in Egypt as such a crime was punishable by death. Realising his predicament, he fled Egypt together with the people he saved to a place in the desert where the Egyptians couldn't find him.

Forty years would pass and the likelihood of any Egyptian remembering, let alone recognising, the old man was virtually gone. Yet something happened to the old man — now living a simpler and more frugal life — to make him come back to Egypt. Given his memory of what happened, you would think going back to the brutal country was the last thing on the old man's mind. Why go back there as things haven't changed. Yet something drove him to complete one more task before he could be allowed to live his remaining part of his life in peace and happiness. This final task was to free the remaining Hebrews still working under the pharaoh's rule. What drove him to perform such a task? Unlike the story of the great flood and how the earliest recorded story of the event avoided explaining what inspired the old man to build a boat only to be later enhanced with an explanation based on something mysterious affecting the old man, the story teller for this latest event in Egypt would dispense with the idea of hiding what influenced the old man in this latest situation. Might as well be open and explain the situation. It means that we again see the return of the same controversial figure talked about in previous Bible stories. It is hard to tell how to interpret what happened to the old man. He would claim that it was a mysterious entity that came to him one day. The best he could describe the experience is by saying that he met a mysterious entity called, for a lack of a better word, God. We are told it had to be God and not some devil because it seemed the request from this strange entity was to help the remaining Hebrews still captive in Egypt. No devil would ever suggest such a thing. A devil would just simply tell the old man to ignore the slaves and walk away, or do something much worse. Or why bother saying anything? There is nothing one man can do to change the mind of a pharaoh and his way of life. And the pharaoh has a mighty military force to back him up. It is too comfortable and convenient for the ruling class living in that country. And, anyway, those pyramids won't build themselves. Someone has to be there to do the work. But no, we cannot have the pharaoh and his family doing the work. We can't have those people busting their butts off building their personal monuments to themselves. Might as well get enough slaves to do the work for them. Therefore, leave the poor old man alone and hopefully someone in the enslaved people can make an uprising and everything will be okay again. A return to balance eventually, you might say. Or so one would have thought. The only thing is, many years have passed and nothing has changed. But to actually say to the old man that he needed to help these people, it must surely be God, right? It is a God that became concerned by the lingering suffering of the people under the rule of the ruthless Egyptian leaders (So what was God doing over the years? Was it preoccupied with something else in another part of the Universe? Or did it think these humans will fight back and restore balance?). Things were not changing, or not quickly enough. In that case, how would God make the change? You either go ahead and make the change using its great powers. Or you must find someone to convince the pharaoh to let go of those slaves. Interesting for God to choose the latter. In that case, you need an old man. Someone who is more likely to be listened to because of his experiences and wisdom. And in case the pharaoh would ignore the old man, have something else on the side to increase the pressure on the pharaoh to make the right decision. Therefore, before God could ever hope to interfere in human affairs, part of every good negotiation is knowing you have something up the proverbial sleeve of God that humans didn't know. The question is, what is the thing humans didn't know was coming? Remember, it had to be big and powerful to make people think twice.

Now what could that be?

If all this sounds a bit weird and perhaps even contrived, you are not alone. The question is, why mention God at all if this is just another story created by a story-teller? And why wait for more than 40 years to make the change in human society just to restore balance and bring back the principle of love?

Unfortunately, as the story goes, we have to consider God as somehow necessary and integral in the involvement of this important event because the old man and his people said so, and even observed evidence for the existence of God. Furthermore, a natural disaster was coming to cement the story to a real-life event, thereby making it harder for archaeologists to ignore.

How odd that one has to include God in this story? It seems like it was the only way anything would get done on Earth and hopefully change the attitude of certain leaders running the show on the ground. But is it the God that Jewish men think it is?

This is the thing. In truth, a true God with immense powers would never need the help of one human, or any number of humans for that matter, to achieve some kind of balancing act on humans or the environment. A true God could easily do the work of changing people's views or beliefs on its own with ease if it wanted to. Certainly it would not hesitate or wait 40 years to find something to use as a negotiating tool. It would just do it. Remember, God created the Universe, right? Surely God can throw hail, lightning, and earthquakes at the Egyptian leader anytime it likes and for as long as it likes until this guy caves in to God's demands. Sounds simple enough. But no. God, for some reason, cannot do this. And it had to wait...and wait...and wait. Forty years as it turned out. Huh? With all the powers bestowed on God, surely it could have had this balanced and resolved the moment the slaves were enslaved by the Egyptian captors. But this wasn't the case. God never did anything until at a very late stage. Better late than never. But either it was afraid, or it didn't (and probably still does not) have the immense power we thought it had to make the necessary changes on Earth as a way to influence human leaders. It had to wait to find something it can use to change the mind of one ruthless human being. Furthermore, it needed this old man to take the risk of doing the work on the ground on behalf of this entity to try to influence the pharaoh. Makes one wonder what happens if the old man succeeded in persuading the pharaoh to let go of the remaining Hebrews. Will this other thing used to convince the pharaoh later actually take place? In other words, could God stop whatever natural disaster was about to hit Egypt?

If God couldn't start a natural disaster in reasonable time, what was the probability of stopping one?

Somehow the plan had to work precisely and follow a particular approach. It is as if God was supremely confident of the outcome and how the pharaoh would react.

Thus, the plan was to send the old man to Egypt (of course, he would do the walking — no flying for him and provide a nighttime drop off in Cairo somewhere when people were asleep). His task was primarily to let the Egyptian leader know what he should do and that it was in the pharaoh's interest to agree with the old man's request. He had to explain that this is the right thing to do. And if he refuses, even despite a brief mention of the consequences to come thanks to some advice from the mysterious God to the old man, then let the shitstorm begin. Or maybe it wasn't so much of a risk for God to follow this plan. As we know, old men in these times were naturally respected in a patriarchal society no matter if you were seen by others as a potential enemy. Men listen to other men, especially older men. However, God must have had considerable confidence in knowing what the answer will be from the Egyptian leader, as we shall see from the consequences. Was this confidence well-founded? If it wasn't, it would look rather embarrassing for God to "get it wrong" should the Egyptian leader agree to the old man's demands and still have the disaster hit Egypt. People might have second thoughts about God, thinking it was not powerful enough to stop the impending disaster. But luckily for God, everything went as planned. A bit of fundamental 101 psychology in understanding how males think, especially in positions of power and wealth. And from that basic knowledge of human behaviour, God knew what the answer would be. Very good. All we need then is to make the old man look good to his enslaved Israelites, especially when the consequences do eventually take place (well, how else are we going to get everyone to believe in God, right?). This poor old man was probably at the right place and time for God to ask him to do a favour and be part of "the show", so to speak. And incredibly, there must be considerable confidence from God in knowing how things would proceed, right down to the type of response the Egyptian leader would probably provide, irrespective of what the old man would say. But here is the problem: why bother asking an old man to do this work? A true God would not bother. Unless, of course, we are dealing with another "god". A god that is watching, but is not quite powerful enough to shake up all of the Middle East in a literal and physical sense.

One gets the impression that we do have another encounter with an extraterrestrial civilisation(s) having this grandiose vision of influencing humanity towards a road of greater balance and love but needed the old man to help with this goal. Fortunately for the old man, he did interpret this entity as sufficiently powerful to think it was probably the one and only true "God" due to the fact that it had a reasonable understanding of the principle of love (i.e., help the slaves, even if this "God" waited a very long time) and magical way of communicating with him and looking so powerful in its abilities. Well, anything with a technology will always be indistinguishable from magic for humans at this time. A veritable treasure trove of miracles all waiting to happen — exactly how simple-minded folks would see the situation at this time — using technology as well as timing things to coincide with one natural event as a way to provide the necessary fireworks for creating a spectacular open air show for everyone.

It is interesting to see how God can't solve the problem on its own. Where is this immense power God allegedly has to keep humans on the straight and narrow? Surely God would have the power to influence anything on the ground. As people have been led to believe in the Book of Genesis, God created the Universe in 7 days (probably another play on words from a great story-teller to help simple-minded people to visualise the almighty power of this being in doing things and achieving great goals within a timeframe that people can see is impossible for them to achieve but can at least grasp the timeframe and can create the picture in the minds of these simple folks of an all-powerful God). It should be clear by now that the true creator of the Universe would have absolutely no trouble moving mountains and destroying anything in its path if for any reason anyone or anything was not in the good books of this mysterious entity. Not showing love by any chance? Get ready to have your ass kicked! A true God would be very good at that. Yet we are given the impression from this old man of an entity that is afraid to exercise its power on the people of the Earth, let alone on the rest of the planet. How can it possibly be worried? Worried in the sense that it could affect other good people? Difficult to discriminate when throwing those big boulders at the Egyptian ruler? Yeah right. Give us another one. Seriously, God can choose to be highly selectively by geography on who to target. Can you see the pyramids? You can't miss it right? Knock them out. Maybe do it at night to have the fewest slaves working on the site. Or do you know which building the pharaoh resides in? Surely that couldn't be hard to work out. It is the one he often disappears into at the end of the day (presumably to go to sleep) and does it on a fairly regular daily basis. It is a building that is large and rather well fitted out with luxury features. You really can't miss it. Well, throw a big stone at or near the building as a calling card and stick on a message to the stone that says, "Hey dude! Change your wicked ways now or you will get more of these stones heading your way! Signed God" Apparently not. God cannot do it. Yeah right. What kind of God is this? And why should it be so hard for God to do the job of restoring balance? Surely God can kick anyone's ass if it wanted to, and do it well and in a highly targeted fashion. No human weapon can ever counter the actions of a mean God hell-bent at changing human society and dealing with ruthless and selfish leaders. Or would it be closer to the truth to say that God is not quite as powerful as we are led to believe (i.e., the thing that came to see the old man could not have created the heavens and the Earth, but a lesser god, whoever it might be)? If so, then one can understand why it chose not to have greater intervention on human events. It does not have the technological powers to move a large amount of mass and throw it at the pharaohs' place of worship and living quarters just to get the message across. Or if it could, it might be an asteroid, but something is telling us it would be difficult to aim it precisely at the intended target. So, it would be better to find other options. Or why not God come down in person to give the message to the pharaoh? Probably not. If God had to intervene at a personal level, it could have felt more endangered of its own life if it is a lesser "god". Furthermore, it would be a far less frightening experience for humans to see another human doing the task rather than an alien coming down from the sky and scaring the living daylights out of the Egyptian people. Even if the alien was humanoid in design, looking at this creature would probably still reveal certain physical characteristics that might well be considered sufficiently different in appearance from any human (no matter if the alien might be prettier than us). Or maybe God feels it is too young to influence a male leader? Somehow it needed someone "older" to do the work. But then that would definitely make God a lesser "god". And if it came down in person to make the recommendations of doing good to your fellow human beings no matter how similar it may have looked to us, the alien would probably be more in danger of its own life if the feeble-minded Egyptians decided to solve their fear or felt threatened by killing the visitor. More of a reason to let a human do the job. Choose an old man to pass on the message and men would more likely listen. Older men were generally respected and listened to by other men than any young bloke (unless he happens to have a sword in hand and an army behind him to sway enough people to follow his beliefs, or else spend lots of time healing people and teaching the concept of love in order to convince enough people to see the young man as someone to listen to).

Nobody knows for sure exactly what happened. All we know is that the old man was shaken by the experience with what he believed to be God and he knew he had to fulfil a great promise he made with this entity.

Either that, or his group of followers must have given the old man some pretty powerful drugs from certain opiate-making plants in the area just to make him hallucinate in this highly vivid way (and make him believe in God). Well, if this is what will take to get people to do the right thing and show more love in the world, might as well share this hallucinatory drug with the rest of the humans on this planet and the world should be a better place by now.

Whatever really happened, we see the old man was prepared to do something to help the remaining Israelites in Egypt in accordance with God's wishes. Very good. Armed with certain additional secret knowledge acquired from God to give him confidence God was on his side, the old man returned to Egypt. He probably didn't look too cocky at the time. Being an old man, he must have chosen to look innocent and modest and not one who could harm a fly. He pretended nothing unusual had happened to him. So, he approached the pharaoh (the exact name is not precisely known as the years of reign for some of the pharaohs also coincided around 1,600 to 1,650B.C, and archaeologists have uncovered a new pharaoh in 2014 named Woseribre Senebkay whose mummified body has been carbon dated to 1,601 B.C. and appeared to have exercised his reign from around 1,650 B.C. making it harder for archaeologists to be certain who was around at this time to talk to this old man). As he stood before the Egyptian leader, the old man demanded (or persuaded might be a better word) that the pharaoh release his people, in a respectful way of course. The kind of "ass-licking" an old man had to do when faced with a ruthless Egyptian who only needed a tiny excuse to have you killed on the spot for any disrespect. One can see why an old man was put on the job. More tactful in his approach. The pharaoh looked at the old man who spoke unusually well for an outsider (and ignorant of the fact that this old man was taught well by his adopted Egyptian family more than 40 years earlier, so it was clear that no one recognised who he was). This old man probably wore shaggy looking clothes from another country and had a long walking stick and a white beard to suggest great wisdom. Probably reminiscent of a wizard from the Harry Potter books if he wore a pointy cone-shaped hat to complete the picture. However, back then, this was an ordinary man. Just someone who should be given a little more respect given his age and great wisdom.

Dynasty XVII: 1668-1570 B.C.
Pharaoh Throne Name Reign
Inyotef (Intef) V Nubkheperre c.1668-1663
Rahotep Sekhemre-wahkhau c.1663-1660
Sebekemsaf I Sekhemre-wadjkhau c.1660-1644
Djehuti Sekhemre-sementawy c.1644-1643
Mentuhotep VI Sankhenre c.1643-1642
Nebiryerau I Sewadjenre c.1642-1623
Nebiryerau II Neferkare c.1623-1622
Senwosret V Seweserenre c.1622-1610
Sebekemsaf II Sekhemre-shedtawy c.1610-1601
Inyotef (Intef) VI Sekhemre-wepma'at c.1601-1596
Inyotef (Intef) VII Sekhemre-herherma'at c.1596
Djehuti'o I Senekhtenre Ta'o c.1596-1591
Djehuti'o II Seqenenre Ta'o c.1591-1576
Kamose Wadjkheperre c.1576-1570
Dynasty XVIII: 1570-1293 B.C.
Pharaoh Throne Name Reign
Ahmose I Nebpehtyre c.1570-1546
Amenhotep I Djeserkare c.1546-1527
Tuthmosis I Akheperkare c.1527-1515
Tuthmosis II Akheperenre c.1515-1498
Tuthmosis III Menkhepere c.1504-1450
Queen Hatshepsut Maatkare c.1498-1483
Amenhotep II Akheperure c.1450-1412
Tuthmosis IV Men-khepru-Re c.1412-1402
Amenhotep III Nebmaatre c.1402-1364
Amenhotep IV Akhenaten Neferkheperure c.1350-1334
Smenkhkare Ankhheperure c.1336-1334
Tutankhaten Nebkheperoure c.1334-1325
Ay Kheperkheperure c.1325-1321
Horemheb Djeserkheperure c.1321-1293
The best estimates of when the leaders were on the throne for known pharaohs of the 17th and 18th Dynasties.
(Source: Portrait Timeline, LLC.)

One has to give it to this Egyptian leader. For all his failures as a leader, at least the pharaoh was prepared to listen to this old man, even if he probably laughed a lot as he did. Watching what he thought was an excellent bit of theatre from a funny actor who has foolishly travelled such a great distance to make this tearful request, the pharaoh probably coughed a little as he tried to clear something from his throat and look serious again and maintained his gaze into the old man's eyes from a distance. However, he probably struggled to contain his laughter at times. Still he could not see what the fuss was about or the obvious benefits he would receive from releasing the people in the manner the old man was seeking. At the same time, this old man wasn't a threat to the pharaoh as he could see he was old and somewhat frail and didn't carry a weapon (except for his innocent-looking walking stick). Unfortunately the stick was no light saber from Star Wars. Presumably just a normal stick to keep the old man from falling over at his age or used to indicate a wise man.

The pharaoh thought long and hard about what he had heard...a generous 3 seconds or so apparently.

"It has always been like this, so why change now?" the pharaoh probably thought. And anyway, these slaves helped form part of the life blood of the nation. Without those slaves, the pharaoh could not enjoy his life of luxury and great comfort as well as preparation for his afterlife. So why risk losing all this extravagance and richness in his life by letting the slaves go? And now this silly old man will have to walk all the way back to wherever he came from empty handed. No wonder the pharaoh felt so incredibly amused by the whole situation. It seems the only benefit the pharaoh got from this discussion was to receive some entertainment and a welcome change from his usual boring tasks of ordering people around all day.

Just to add to his amusement, the Egyptian leader probably could not contain his laughter when he realised this old man had no army behind him to even vaguely carry out his request with any force or persuasion should discussions with the pharaoh fall apart. With the way things were progressing, the pharaoh was not feeling charitable, and the old man was quickly seeing this meeting as a waste of time. Or maybe he already knew what the outcome would be?

Then there was a moment when the pharaoh felt a little challenged by the old man when he spoke of a Lord God of Israel. The pharaoh must have thought, "Oh really! Now who or what could have a higher authority than my gods and I?"

Maybe he wanted to amuse himself a little further with the old man's seemingly outrageous idea. Well, the pharaoh did make a reasonable effort to listen to this old man (one must consider it a slight improvement from the Egyptian captor who mistreated the Hebrew slaves forty years earlier). At least we can give this pharaoh some credit. However he wasn't entirely convinced of the old man's explanation. He stubbornly stuck by his beliefs and denied the old man's request. Even when shown some interesting tricks from the old man including his stick turning into a slithering creature reminiscent of a snake, the pharaoh still wouldn't budge from his position (did God provide the old man with a new type of technological walking stick? And did it happen to have a camera and a microphone for God to listen in on the conversations within the Egyptian temple to learn what the outcome would be?).

Two experimental robotic snakes developed in the 21st century showing the feasibility of creating a walking stick to behave like a snake. Picture taken by Steve Jurvetson and made available under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license. Source:

Yet the old man was in an unusually confident position for it seemed he knew what the answer would be from the pharaoh (not to mention the impending disaster that was about to befall Egypt). Why the confidence? Was this well-founded? It is not clear how God could possibly affect the outcome of an imminent natural disaster quite as well as we are led to believe. Remember, this entity is almost certainly not the true God that created the universe in 7 days, assuming the Bible can be relied upon as a trusted source of information. All that waiting for 40 years. It is just inconceivable. In which case, we must have a lesser "god". An entity from the sky who had been finding it a little more challenging to start a natural disaster and use it to its advantage, unless it did a lot of testing, applied some mathematics, ran a few simulations on a computer, and came up with a probability figure explaining how likely the natural disaster will take place. Might explain why this "god" had chosen to wait 40 years to tell the old man to do his work on behalf of the mysterious entity. This "god" must have known when the disaster was going to happen and had timed it beautifully to make its appearance in front of the old man to let him know what was about to happen and how it was going to happen. Unfortunately, it could not be earlier or find ways to hasten the disaster. This so-called God was clearly not powerful enough to achieve that seemingly simple task. Obviously a big risk for God to wait as long as it did and eventually say something. What if the predictions were not right? Certainly it would be embarrassing for God (and would make the old man re-think whether this God is real, or more likely the devil) if the disaster did not take place. Or what if it couldn't stop the disaster should the pharaoh make the unexpected decision of letting the Hebrews go? If that happened, very few people would ever believe in God, and then this mysterious God would be in big trouble. Fortunately, as things turned out, God was remarkably right about the psychology of dominant and ruthless male leaders, and the old man knew what the outcome would be from his discussion with the pharaoh. He didn't seem all that disappointed. Going to see the pharaoh was just a formality. And its predictions were remarkably accurate and timely too thanks to God's predictions using whatever tool it had at its disposal. The fixated nature of the pharaoh's thinking and enjoying too much of his extravagant lifestyle was enough to convince God, and the old man, of what the decision would be. Whatever this God and the old man knew was coming and how everything was figured out, he would then declare to the pharaoh that if his people would not be released, the pharaoh and his own people would experience a great plague, the Nile river in the delta region where the pharaoh lived would suddenly turn red, the Egyptian people relying on fish and water from the Nile would suffer health problems, a great darkness would fall at a time when the Sun should be shining, and lightning and hail would come and other frightening events, unless the pharaoh released the slaves.

Not surprisingly, the pharaoh's highly rational mind and set ways of doing things as well as no record of a similar event in the past to make him re-think his position had not persuaded him to do anything different. He was enjoying life too much, and the slaves were too valuable to let go. All he could see was the ramblings of an old man making an unheard of request together with an unbelievable story of an impending disaster to hit Egypt. Carrying a clever magic walking stick had only added to the pharaoh's entertainment and personal amusement. He must have thought this old man was losing his marbles, or a very funny man.

Sounds like a familiar and repeating theme in the Bible for corrupted men set in theirs ways and too focussed in the here-and-now moment of enjoying life at the top. Could this theme have continued on into modern times?

However, the events described by the old man did happen. As extraordinary as this may sound, archaeologists in the late 20th and early 21st century have found evidence of what was the biggest explosion of the last 10,000 years occurring on the Greek island of Santorini less than 200 kilometres from Egypt. It is believed around 1,500 B.C. to 1,650 B.C. (probably closer to 1,613 B.C.), a sudden movement of the African continental plate as it slipped below the European plate caused a massive volcano to erupt (the equivalent of a pimple on the face of mother Earth which the true God had decided to pop open with its fingers, although in this case, a lesser "god" must have waited for this to happen). It blew such a huge hole through the island that plumes of smoke, dust and ash were sent 40 kilometres high into the stratosphere. Just to make it more remarkable, the wind was coincidentally blowing the dust in an east to south-easterly direction where Egypt was. Geez, God must have been lucky to predict the winds and how this natural disaster was going to unfold.

As a result of the volcanic explosion, an earthquake of magnitude 4 to 5 on the Riechter scale was felt 200 kilometres away. It was enough to topple numerous Egyptian statues. Soon afterwards, darkness fell on the Nile delta as the volcanic dust clouds moved over Egypt, just as the old man had predicted. It would be accompanied by intense lightning and a generous serving of volcanic hail (ash and water crystals) just to make the pharaoh think for a moment.

Still, there was more to come. An increase in the number of bugs and bacteria was enough to affect the health of the fish as well as the people who drank from the water and later ate the fish. The Bible also indicated a red colour appeared in the water looking like blood due to a sudden release of carbon dioxide gas inside the Earth reacting with iron dissolved at the bottom of the water and the oxygen, leaving behind a distinctly reddish iron oxide. Soon the fish died from a lack of oxygen in the water following the chemical reaction.

It this wasn't enough, an unusual number of insects and frogs were mobilised and, as they were trying to move away from the prolonged darkness, cold and lack of fresh water, came across the Nile delta to be witnessed by the Egyptian pharaoh and his people.

The pharaoh must have wondered what kind of magic trick did the old man manage to conjure up for this calamity to become true.

Even today, it does make some scientists wonder what kind of scientific instrument the old man had in his possession to help him predict this catastrophic event. Maybe he stuck his finger in the ground and pulled it out and saw the future for Egypt and did not realise some men had designated the area as a latrine? Assuming it wasn't one of his fellow men's morning ablutions left in the ground, the only other way he could have predicted a disaster was if he noticed in the air the smell of hydrogen sulphide and other sulfur compounds on a mountain top where the winds had been pushing the gases from the rumbling volcano in the old man's direction. That would require an enormous amount of rotten egg gas to be hanging around in the air and yet no one else in this part of the world ever noticed it! No stories mentioned in Egypt or in other civilisations living in the Middle East to suggest something was about to happen. Or did some men in the Middle East did notice the smell lingering in the air at certain times and apart from making a few jokes about it, decided it was best to keep quiet after getting consistently blamed for it by their wives (probably with words to the effect of, "No more sex for you big boy while you keep breaking wind all the time!"). Still, even with rotten egg smells, one had to know the relationship between smelly sulfur compounds and volcanoes. And if this wasn't enough, the old man had to predict precisely when the volcano was going to erupt and in which direction the wind would be blowing the volcanic ash at the right time. For him to achieve all of this with uncanny accuracy using his finger or walking stick and understood the impact of the disaster on Egypt would be an extraordinary feat of genius, or an amazingly good educated guess. Very risky if it was the latter. Unless the old man had experience with volcanoes at some point in his early life (no evidence to suggest that he was aware of such a connection, or ventured far across the Mediterranean region to observe the potential hotspots for volcanic eruptions) it seems unlikely he could have known on his own that a volcano was about to erupt.

Or should we conclude that he had a truly amazing instrument by way of his finger? Certainly makes one proclaim the finger is mightier than the sword on this occasion, or any sophisticated scientific instrument available to scientists in the 21st century. A truly astounding feat indeed.

Still, despite such remarkably accurate and insightful knowledge of the natural disaster, the old man had managed to hide one more trick up his proverbial sleeve to impress yet again modern scientists in the 21st century. He returned to ask whether the pharaoh agreed with his request. Still he refused. No surprise. So the old man said that his first born child would be affected by the recent catastrophic event.

Knowing that the pharaoh's first born is the most valuable to him as the child would take over the reigns of power when he died, the old man somehow knew this was going to make the pharaoh change his mind. As so many humans are so close to their family and will do anything to protect them or agree to any request in order to stop further harm from taking place, it is reasonable psychology to see whether this was going to work. Not so for the Egyptian ruler who, without being aware of the old man's knowledge he acquired from an unknown source, decided he would refuse once again the old man's request thinking his own gods would be more powerful and help protect his first born. How wrong he was. Not knowing the science behind volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and rupturing deposits of toxic gases underground, something else was about to happen. And it would affect his first born (as well as many other Egyptian infants).

As the story went, that very night, all Egyptian first-born males sleeping on low-lying beds on the ground floor were asphyxiated by a sudden outburst of a large amount of carbon dioxide that emerged from the water. Females, on the other hand, in sleeping on a higher level would be spared. Again the old man knew about this and how to protect his people by asking them to sleep in the upper floor (remarkable knowledge for a wise old man with practically no scientific training and apparently no experience in volcanic eruptions and their effects on various things until now). He certainly must have listened to God very well indeed. Excellent job!

When the pharaoh's baby was fatally affected by the event, the pharaoh's intense grief saw him cave in to the old man's request. The slaves were released, and together with the old man, they went away with quick haste and seemingly unchallenged by anyone as they began to make the exodus from Egypt.

Now that would have been the end of the story, as remarkable as it was, except we all know that all good stories never quite end perfectly, and certainly not if based on historical events. Something else had to complicate the issue towards the end and provide some kind of a climax. Brilliant story-telling no doubt, but then life is not always as we plan or expect. So either it is based on reality, or there was a great story-teller among us back then. As we learn from the Bible, the pharaoh calmed down from his intense grief. He thought about everything he witnessed and kept wondering in his mind, "What kind of a magic trick did this old man manage to pull off on him? Does this mean this old man's God is more powerful than the gods he worshipped? Surely not!" Soon his thinking changed to one of violence. It wasn't long before he foolishly decided to try a trick of his own for the old man just to show how powerful his gods were — as a form of revenge, he would allegedly send 600 Egyptians on chariots to intercept the old man and his people and have them wiped out in a bloodbath. No more old man, and no more Hebrew followers. How's that for a magic trick of making them disappear according to the feeble-minded pharaoh. Unfortunately for the pharaoh, he was once again unaware of yet another magic trick the old man had up his proverbial sleeve (he would have made any 21st century magician proud of his efforts). And more importantly he would receive extra help from this outside mysterious source to ensure everything would coincide precisely to help save his people. Even more interestingly, this God would partially reveal itself in the sky to the people and Egyptians at this crucial time.

What happened next is interesting to say the least, especially if it represented real-life events. As we are told, the old man and his people had reached the marshy sea. Once there, there was a moment of waiting (sounds familiar?). Then the old man was permitted to show a bit of theatrics to the people by raising his arms and stick in the air and calling out God's name. Just at that moment, the Hebrews allegedly witnessed the water parting on either side of the old man. They called the place Yam Suf (or Reed Sea, prior to being drained by the Suez Canal in the 19th century). Connected to this sea was a place called Lake El Balah, which when translated from Hebrew means quite literally, "The lake where God devoured". It is here where the Hebrews back then described what happened in imaginative language as a wall of water being scooped up by God on either side of the old man and so allowing him and his people up to 3 hours to walk across an apparent land bridge previously hidden by the water. The brilliant timing for the water to recede would have convinced his people of the reality of God.

Actually, it wasn't quite precise. As if following real-life events, when the old man and his people did arrive at the right spot, he had to wait. But that's not all. Getting to the spot to make the crossing was not quite quick enough. The Egyptian army was rapidly gaining on the group, and if no intervention from God had taken place, the old man would have failed in his quest to save his people. But as luck would have it, this mysterious entity suddenly made itself visible in the sky to frighten and keep the soldiers from advancing further. Well, suddenly might not be the right word. A glowing cloud-like structure appeared in the sky to help guide the old man and his people to the right spot. God was around for sometime for everyone to see. And as the soldiers tried to advance and get closer to the escaping people, they too would get a chance to observe this mysterious God in the sky.

Then, as the soldiers stayed put to see what God would do next, and understandably frightened by the experience, as this glowing object approached the ground and re-traced its path to make the soldiers stop, enough time had passed for the old man to walk away from the group. Whether to check on where the soldiers were waiting, or more likely to receive further visual signs from God on when to return to the front of the group and stand on a high part of the ground for the people to observe, face the waters, and raise his walking stick and arms to ask God to do its trick.

The old man continued to remain unusually confident, even right down to the fact that he knew when to tell his people to start walking across the land bridge once the waters receded. But there was more to come.

While the Egyptian soldiers stood still and unable to see what was happening from their vantage point, the old man and his people made the crossing as quickly as possible, taking roughly three hours for everyone to reach the other side. What happened next is fascinating. Instead of telling people to run for their lives and/or hide, the old man showed his confidence once more by asking his people to look back. That was when God decided to move away. Thinking the Egyptians were free to advance on the old man and do their dirty deed, they marched on. What the Hebrews (and certainly the Egyptian soldiers pursuing them) didn't realise is that a wall of water no less than 2 metres high was about to return and sweep across the valley. At first the water receded for a few hours because of the movement of the African continental plate allowing the Hebrews to walk across the floor of the valley (but elevated somewhat on a kind of land bridge hidden by the water — Moses managed to work out where this was). But once the old man and his people reached the other side, the African plate suddenly slipped back. The Egyptian soldiers were oblivious to their surroundings. They were more focused on capturing and killing the old man and his people, or else face the fear of being executed themselves on returning home if the task was not fulfilled at the request of the pharaoh. As the tactic of fear and death was used to force soldiers to do the dirty work, the soldiers were ordered to go across the land bridge in a great haste. Not thinking and realising as to why the water had suddenly disappeared and whether it would return, the Egyptians continued on their merry way across the valley. However, the decision to cross the valley at that precise moment was the Egyptian soldiers own downfall. When the waters did return, it would coincide remarkably well with the deaths of these Egyptian military men. The carnage and destruction was witnessed by the people who stood safely on the other side of the valley.

As you can see, the situation was not precise for everyone. To emphasise this point, we see the following passage:

"By day the Lord went ahead of them in a pillar of cloud to guide them on their way and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light. Neither the pillar of cloud by day nor the pillar of fire by night left its place in front of the people."

The old man clearly had to wait, and so too for the Egyptian solders thanks to the intervention by God to stop their advancement. The glowing cloud was witnessed by the Egyptians pursuing the old man and his people. In fact, we learn of several opportunities for the Egyptians to reach the old man and his followers only to hesitate and stop. On each occasion. the mysterious cloud performed intelligent manoeuvres designed to affect and frighten the Egyptian soldiers on the ground. All the UFO did was move forward and back across the sky on its own accord and low enough to a position where it made the Egyptians stop and wait. It was large enough to scare the Egyptians and stay put for a while. It was just long enough before certain other natural events would take place and for the old man to do his trick of "dividing the waters" so to speak in front of his people and walk across the marshy sea. If things had been more precise, we would have to conclude that it was a made up story.

Here is how the King James version of the Bible in Exodus 13:21 explained this situation:

"And the angel of God [in the sky], which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them: {14:20} And it came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel; and it was a cloud and darkness [to them,] but it gave light by night [to these:] so that the one came not near the other all the night. {14:21}

And the Egyptians pursued, and went in after them to the midst of the sea, [even] all Pharaoh's horses, his chariots, and his horsemen. {14:24} And it came to pass, that in the morning watch the LORD looked unto the host of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and of the cloud, and troubled the host of the Egyptians, {14:25} And took off their chariot wheels, that they drave them heavily: so that the Egyptians said, Let us flee from the face of Israel; for the LORD fighteth for them against the Egyptians."

A fascinating observation. For a great story not to be exactly perfect because it needed a third entity to intervene in the events on the ground to make things coincide in the right way, it does make it more believable and potentially representative of a real event. The only tricky bit is that it did require a third party to be involved (i.e., God) — the only incredible thing to have some rational people today scratching their heads over the veracity of the story. While this is not proof the story is true, it does provide food for thought. Are we dealing with an extraterrestrial connection? We can only guess based on the available archaeological evidence as it emerges (and why not reports of genuine UFOs and how they might appear in the sky — are there any similarities in terms of cloud formations around symmetrical flying objects? These are the sorts of things we need to check for).

Or else we could assume the story was nothing more than the classic ramblings of an old man and his people trying to instil fear in their own children to do the right thing by conjuring up a remarkable story to coincide with the natural disaster that hit Egypt? Yet somehow the story would never be forgotten and was maintained over many generations and eventually included in the Bible. No embellishment of any kind, or efforts to change the story and remove God from the picture, or turn God into a more powerful supernatural being doing more amazing things on the ground. How odd? To maintain such a story right down to a mysterious entity from the sky strongly suggests that we may have something representative of a real event in history. But is it really true? Today Christians, Jews and Hebrews believe this is among the best evidence available for the existence of God.

In other words, certain people are confident the story is based on a real event, but it does require humans to also accept the existence of God.

Or perhaps we are dealing with one of the earliest recorded evidence of ETs helping humans?

Take your pick!

Fortunately, the 21st century has arrived and latest scientific research into those mysterious flying objects known as UFOs (with special emphasis on those observed at close range) is showing evidence of a technology capable of supporting the mysterious glowing cloud of 1,600 B.C.. For example, we know that air pressure can be reduced near the metal surface of these symmetrical flying objects. Firstly a negative charge is applied to the metal surface. We use an oscillating electric charge because we want to emit radiation and create a recoiling force on the object using curvature of the metal surface at the right spot for movement to take place and to travel in a straight line. Radiation also only moves charged particles (not uncharged matter as previously thought by the scientists). Adding more charge will merely give the radiation more to "hold" onto and "push" against (and taking with it the atoms and crystalline structure of the metal), thereby amplifying the recoiling force. This type of recoiling force is far more significant than was previously considered, and only a hint of the idea is revealed in the Abraham-Lorentz formula. Remember, this is the poorly understood formula of electromagnetism describing what happens to a charged object emitting radiation, but have yet to be observed in reality through an official experiment. Also, the charge can help to electrify the air through its emissions of electrons from the surface. Thus you have a combination of large-scale electromagnetic waves (or radiation) being emitted outwards from the charged surface to physically travel away and push some of the air, as well as the emissions of electrons from the electrified surface to help knock out electrons in the air molecules (only to be later get re-captured and so emit radiation of their own — aurora-like colours are commonly observed in the atmosphere and surrounding the object). However, should the radiation be substantial enough to push away the air, and there is a large-scale magnetic field component also being formed by an internally rotating charged ring or electrically conducting fluid beneath the floor inside (even a rotating outer metal charged hull can do the same thing), more air will get pushed away rather than get electrified and sit there. The magnetic field is there to help in the deflection of charged particles, as well as icy comets and other materials in space. Furthermore, the electrified air will be strongest around the circumferential edge as one would expect. Either way, the result is a reduction in air pressure near the surface. The main benefit of this is to allow the objects to travel faster through the Earth's atmosphere without creating a sonic boom or creating extra heat to the metal surface from the frictional forces with the air. But there is another natural side-effect. When air pressure is reduced in slightly humid air, UFOs can come masquerading as a cloud in the sky.

As an example of a modern-day UFO revealing this cloud structure, see the UFO case from Finland in 1970 observed by two skiers, Aarno Heinonen and Esko Viljo, not far from the town of Imjarvi.

Hence descriptive words used to describe God in the Bible such as:

"God stretches out heaven over empty space, and hangs the earth upon nothing. He wraps the rain in his thick clouds and the clouds are not split by the weight. He shrouds his throne with his clouds." Job 26

could be easily explained using the latest UFO knowledge we have about cloud formations and the effects of electric charge and electromagnetic fields on the electrified air.

So when you hear modern-day military observers say the following things:

"No agency in this country or Russia is able to duplicate at this time the speeds and accelerations which radars and observers indicate these flying objects are able to achieve… there are objects coming into our atmosphere at very high speeds. Reliable reports indicate there are objects coming into our atmosphere at very high speeds and controlled by thinking intelligences." (Quote appeared in the New York Times, 17 January 1957, p. 31.)

as mentioned by Admiral Delmer S. Fahrney, former head of the Navy’s guided-missile program in the mid-1950s, we should not be surprised by this revelation. We should expect this sort of observation to be perfectly feasible. Remember, the type of acceleration from a charged object emitting radiation is said to be exponential. The kind of dramatic non-linear acceleration that can help to explain the sudden acceleration and high speeds attained by UFOs.

As for the glowing nature of UFOs, again we should not be surprised. This glowing effect is attributable to the charged metal surface being heated sufficiently to glow like an electric light bulb. That is what happens when the charge is oscillating, forcing the electrons to move around in the metal very quickly. As the electrons bounce around and collide with the atoms and other electrons inside the metal, they will emit radiation of a frequency that heats up the metal. Make it hot enough and the metal will naturally glow and emit visible light and not just infra-red by way of heat. So when a heated glowing metal is surrounded by a cloud-like structure, it can give the appearance of a glowing cloud at night.

So yes, it is possible for ETs to have visited our planet today, and in Biblical times. Looking at the Bible quote for the glowing cloud like structure and knowing there are similar UFO cases in recent times, it is the kind of electromagnetic technology and associated side effects that does not seem to change over thousands of years. It's all a question of how refined the technology gets over time by each advanced civilisation when it discovers the electromagnetic concept and implements it in its own way. Basically, the more refined, the faster these objects of a fixed size and mass can cover the immense distances. Or if the speed is fast enough, further refinement would probably see the objects get built to a larger size, and so carry more things on the journey. More instruments, people, and possibly a means of growing food in space during the journey is not out of the question.

So what we are seeing today in the UFO reports could easily have existed 3,600 years ago.

At the moment, all this may seem too incredible to believe for some readers. Too contentious you might say. Therefore, until the experiment is carried out to confirm the electromagnetic concept as a reality, let us be conservative and say that the mathematical solution is an interesting, but poorly understood area of electromagnetism found in only a few advanced textbooks of electromagnetism. Scientists will have to study, and more importantly test, the concept to be absolutely certain we have not missed something critical in discovering a potentially new technology for us.

In the meantime, observations in the Bible of glowing clouds moving on their own in different directions could still be seen as a fancy story-telling tool. Or, should we imagine the presence of glowing ionised gases in the atmosphere from the volcanic eruption which had lingered just at this precise moment for many hours (or days). Of course, we are talking about a cloud of ionised gases that can move forward and go backwards on its own as seen by the old man, his people and the Egyptian soldiers to affect human events on the ground. Quite a remarkable feat for any natural object in anyone's language. It kind of makes the ET explanation sound a little more plausible compared with this natural explanation.

The truth is, no one knows for sure what we are dealing with here. It would be nicer if we had corroborative evidence from someone independent. Why not the Egyptian ruler, for instance? Unfortunately not even the pharaoh at the heart of this story made any reasonable effort to record from his perspective what had happened on a stone wall in one of his temples or on a wall inside his tomb. Probably understandable considering the pharaoh would not want Egyptian people to remember him as a failure and hint at the possibility that he was just an ordinary mortal with no powers from his gods to control people or events on the ground since he couldn't physically stop the old man and his people from escaping Egypt. Better to keep the whole thing quiet and get the military leaders to sworn secrecy and that should be enough for the people of Egypt to remain ignorant. However, it would appear that whoever was the pharaoh involved in the Moses story, he seem to have disappeared, and this was the time for Ahmose I to make his appearance in Egypt. So what happened here remains a little hazy for the archaeologists.

As for the people who remembered and later wrote down the story with the kind of determination to re-tell the story exactly as it was experienced (or first told by the story-teller), the old man would go down in the history books by Jewish and Christian scholars as the legend of Moses (the name given to him by his Egyptian princess turned his adopted mother), in memory of the man who saved his people from incredible oppression and cruel mistreatment under the rule of an Egyptian dictator, and who seemed to have the uncanny knowledge of knowing when a certain catastrophic event was about to beset Egypt and what to do about it and when. A truly amazing story if it is true.

The story doesn't quite end there. Three months later, Moses made his secret walk on his own up a mountain and later came down with a set of rules on two stone (or some tough material looking like stone tablets and fairly lightweight to carry around — well, we don't want Moses to work too hard carrying these tablets down to his people after all he had done so far) from, you guessed it, none other than God himself (yes, he still spoke in a male voice), of how people should live. Known as the Ten Commandments, Moses revealed a series of practical rules on how to live socially. In summary, the rules are all based on the fundamental principle of love when brought to their essence.

Think of these rules as a necessary evolution of the mind through effective education. In the case of these Hebrews who had to live on the Earth and in harmony with others, these people needed to see things with their own eyes, and be reinforced. If what the people have witnessed so far during the exodus was still not enough to convince them of the existence of God and why following the principle of love is a good idea, we have tablets fashioned by the hand of God too. It is looking like people in Biblical times have a hard time to use their imagination to see why the principle of love is so important. Too focused on the here-and-now and the everyday petty things that they must do to survive. They need to see things with their eyes to convince them of the reality of what they need to believe and do. With the tablets at hand, people can touch them and see it is from God. Should be no more doubting God anymore and what to do to follow the principle of love. Everyone can see the evidence.

So if this concept of love still remains challenging to understand, the following commandments may be seen as the first important steps to helping a L-brain society to do the right thing and practice it in reality everyday:

  1. I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other gods before me
  2. You shall not make for yourself an idol
  3. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God
  4. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
  5. Honour your Father and Mother
  6. You shall not murder
  7. You shall not commit adultery
  8. You shall not steal
  9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour
  10. You shall not covet your neighbour's house, and you shall not covet your neighbour's wife.

It is fairly clear to see how these rules are based on the principle of love. It is just that some people need practical steps in what to do to see this principle in action and how it can benefit them in the long term. With these rules etched into the stone tablets with a sense of permanence, and hopefully in the minds of the people who see it (L-brain people need to see things with their eyes in order to believe and do), people would call this holy mountain where God allegedly revealed the laws to Moses as Mount Sinai. (5)

Thanks to some interesting investigations by Canadian filmmaker Jacobovici, the mountain may have been tracked down. Assuming a daily walking distance of 15 kilometres and using the Bible to give an indication of how many days it took to reach the mountain from three locations (one of which is Lake El Balah or 15 days to walk to the mountain and the other two known to the archaeologists as Timna where Moses tended to his flock and was allegedly no more than 45 kilometres from the mountain, and a 11-day walking trek south of a place called Kadesh Barnea) together with some interesting geological features considered extremely rare for this mountain (such as a former fresh water spring on top of the mountain) and a natural geological amphitheatre, it seems the filmmaker may have finally found the landmark. He claims the mountain is likely to be at Hashem El Tarif.

Now if only we could find the Ark of the Covenant containing the Ten Commandments to complete the picture. The presence of the tablets would prove the reality of the story of Exodus and the existence of God (just by analysing the material making up the stone tablet to determine purity and combination of elements and whether such a material could have been made 3,600 years ago). Even a simple determination of how the information was etched into the tablets can tell us if the right tools were available in those times. A pity we can no longer find these pesky tablets.

Before Moses disappeared into obscurity (with only his people and the Bible to remember him), the old man wrote one other story of the first time God had a relationship with man. He began the story with a beginning as L-brain people can appreciate. He claimed "God created the heaven and the earth" but there had to be light for all this to happen. As the story goes, Genesis 1:3-4 stated:

Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.

Great to see light is mentioned. We know the true God behaves very much like radiation in science with its paradoxical properties. But whether light is God is still the great mystery. Either light is God, or it might be closer to the way a hologram works: we can see an image of God in the individual parts (i.e., matter and radiation), but to see the true ultimate God requires us to combine all the parts into one.

As for the separation of the light from the darkness, this is the easier way of saying the universe can only exist in the presence of opposites. These opposites must continually switch back and forth (almost like there is a constant and eternal battle going on between good and bad) and this is how we create the solid matter. As light is an oscillating energy, this is a good example of "switching opposites".

Also, creating the light for the first time could be a metaphor for the first encounter of God (or an extraterrestrial god) with humans to begin the process of passing on the knowledge of the principle of love.

Then again, the light could represent in a scientific sense an accurate way of saying that radiation is the key to understanding how matter in the universe is created. Without radiation, and the oscillating nature of that energy, there would be no matter and nothing to observe and that would mean total darkness. So when we hear God say, "Let there be light!" and there was light, it is not a fluke to realise light is needed to create the Universe and let us observe it. Radiation really is important, not just to religion, but also science too. It kind of neatly sums up the reality of our universe in one simple statement. It avoids having to explain to simple-minded people back in these times about certain scientific concepts such as electromagnetic fields, quantum fluctuations, dark matter etc. None of the people back then would have a clue what you are talking about. Might as well keep it simple for everyone.

Next, we find the story attempts to explain how things were created in a kind of rough order. The things God does during this creation period does get a bit long-winded. We have to wade through more than two dozen sentences via Genesis 1:1 to 1:31 to describe how things came to be. If one had a little more knowledge, Moses could have simplified the whole beginning of the story by saying that God brought light into the world, and then all matter in the universe was created, followed by the stars and planets, including the Earth and all the things we see in the heaven, and later the animals and plants, and eventually man who, incidentally is made in the image of God (funny that Moses would include this tiny piece of detail considering God could have looked like anything except he just so happens to look humanoid in shape — did Moses actually see something during his encounter with God to suggest that this entity really is shaped like a human, and perhaps may have looked not too dissimilar to us? Well, if God is a human-like figure, it cannot be a true God. No God would be seen in a localised form). That is all Moses had to say. By simplifying the story in this way, it does help to make it more understandable and still be technically correct from a scientific viewpoint. For example, scientists do know that the universe does need to have light (or radiation) first before it can be compressed to form self-perpetuating rings of energy needed to build atomic particles of electrons and protons. And then these particles must come together to form atoms of different elements inside stars. Initially hydrogen first. But once the element is cooked inside the nuclear fusion reactors of stars and released into the cosmos by supernova explosions, they can create a multitude of different elements, and with it came the formation of planets, more stars, eventually life, and with it all the creatures in the sea and eventually on land as they evolve over millions of years, and finally the creation of humanoid creatures capable of manipulating the environment and themselves, which on earth is called man (well, at some point two limbs will have to be freed to manipulate the environment and build tools and for the other two limbs to do the walking, so this could be a universal feature of the cosmos for those able to build a technology). Certainly fits in with the way evolution has taken place here on Earth with man created at the very end of a long evolutionary road.

Looking further into the story we see Moses puts a timeline for all this creation work by God. However, people in those times would have had enormous difficulties understanding the scale of time required for all this creation to take place (a billion years is way too hard to imagine for almost anyone today, let alone the passing of 10 years in the mind of a simpleton living 1,600 B.C.). Much better to introduce the days of the week as a tool to make it easier to visualize, and it would have the unintended consequence of making God a truly all-powerful omnipotent being capable of doing amazing things in such a short time. Probably powerful enough to get people to see the value of listening to God whenever he speaks to us if we don't want our ass kicked. But then again, as we have seen, God has its strange ways and decisions on how to solve human problems. At any rate, we see the story ties in all the creation events within 6 days, and on the 7th day we learn that God took a rest and look upon his creation as "good".

Geez, did God really need to rest on the 7th day? It is hard to imagine God being so tired after all this work. Yes, it is a big job, but God shouldn't be tired, surely. Or can God be worked to the ground and die from exhaustion and the Universe be left Godless?

Or perhaps the idea of resting is just a clever way of saying how humans need to spend a little free time to think about things beyond the normal daily grind of surviving. A kind of balancing between our L-brain and R-brain, and recharging our emotions by having some rest and quiet enjoyment. As they say, all work and no play makes for a boring person as they say. Even today people need at least the weekends to relax, try their hand in other areas, solve other problems, and just generally have some fun. Give humans enough time to relax and eventually they will contemplate the grander things and even want to know where we are going, the purpose of the universe, where we are heading in this journey of life, solve different problems, and to ensure our path is one that shows true love.

Moving on, we see good old Moses making a mention of all the various people who once existed and died and the descendants of those people right up to the present time (i.e., 1,600 B.C.). Today, religious people have attempted to estimate the timeline for when all this began (that is the beginning of Biblical times corresponding to when God first appeared) to approximately 6,000 years ago (or starting from 5,400 B.C.). It is a numerical figure based on rough educated guesses of the ages of the various people revealed in the Bible and certain known events that took place in human society in this part of the world. If any familiar names are mentioned in ancient stories carved in clay tablets, they kind of help to get the timeline more accurate. Otherwise, when we add together all the numbers, it is probably around 4,000 years of biblical history was covered in the stories before Moses walked the Earth. Forget some religious people today taking this figure in a literal sense to think this is when the universe came to be or at least when the Earth was created. One should include the Book of Genesis in the picture. This is what happens when the knowledge is not properly balanced with a thorough understanding of the scientific facts and archaeological evidence. It is closer to the truth to say that this very rough timeline of events presented by Moses in his story probably goes back to the time when Noah was probably alive and had just received word from God to build his famous boat. However, Moses adds that God created man and his companion (a woman) in the Garden of Eden. Perhaps Moses was referring to two other individuals who received special treatment by God somewhere in the ancient valley where Noah lived, or was it in Mesopotamia? Or maybe it was nothing more than a simple message embedded into a creative story that explains how people generally become corrupt when receiving too many temptations presented to them on a platter (or branches of a tree by way of fruit) and become eventually greedy, and cause so many other problems after a while.

From this story of the Garden of Eden, Noah appears on the scene. We again see more of the corruption among the people living in the ancient valley. Then we are told of another message from God to tell Noah to build his boat, followed by the great flood to wipe out the corrupt people while saving the one family who was doing the right thing, thereby reinforcing the importance of doing good things (i.e., follow God's word, which is just another way of saying, "follow the principle of love", and God will look upon you, and you may also receive help at the right times).

The story of Noah effective ends there. It would later require the writings from other people in the generations after Moses to gather more details about some of the subsequent and apparently important events that took place, who else may have received messages from God, and uncover more knowledge about the principle of love through the various stories told over the generations.

However, as we have mentioned, something else is missing from all of this knowledge. Following God's ten commandments in such a precise way or else be punished by God according to Moses in order to promote this principle of love was just the start and perhaps considered by some people to be a little too rigid. Even today, too many fundamentalist Christians take the Bible and its stories too literally to the point where they think the universe was created 6,000 years ago and humans lived among the dinosaurs soon thereafter. So not only do they follow the commandments with such rigour and accept everything else written in the Bible, they can take the Bible stories way to literal as if it is absolutely correct, mainly because they see it as the word of God. Even though it was written by men with some quotes apparently coming from God, and the original prophets have picked up further information from this mysterious entity, care must be taken in not accepting everything in a precise way. The last thing you want to do is see God-fearing religious people getting the Bible confused with those cartoon characters in the Flintstones. Whereas, trying to place fear in people can actually paralyze them not to do anything and not solve a problem. If you tell people that if you don't do as God says, you will go to hell or God will punish you, then you are frightening people and reducing their potential to grow and achieve more.

Furthermore, there are some strange religious leaders among Jewish and Christian communities who will be quick to treat those who are not God-fearing and doing exactly as they are told and attending church on a regular basis in a negative and discriminatory way. Even though the world and the Universe is the Church for those who believe in God, it seems those people who read scientific evidence and those who may not be religious, or not religious enough or necessarily believe in God somehow need to be treated differently. Religious leaders have an uncanny way of treating certain people that do not appear to fit into their specific worldview and expectations as giving them the right to deny them love and ostracise them from their society, or see them as "working for the devil". Not exactly how the genuine principle of love should be applied by a true God. And if the opportunity is there as it was more than 2,000 years ago to do as some of these leaders want and control their parishioners, we would have people still stoned or burned on the stake to this day because they are not following the laws precisely or seen to go to church and believing in God.

But it isn't just one's beliefs that could be subject to such bad treatment from religious communities. Other people who might be targeted in this way include those having different sexual orientations based on their genetic makeup. At the same time, other Christians tend to follow too closely what they are told by the Bible and even by their own religious leaders (e.g., the Church in Rome) who are assumed to be experts in the principle of love based on their interpretation of the various stories presented in the Bible. But then the stories of sexual abuse of children and denying women to be religious leaders within the Church will only make more and more people in the congregation question the understanding some Christians have of the principle of love.

What's missing in all of this?

It is simply for people to think for themselves and make their own decisions on what the principle of love should be about and to show it to the world through their actions (i.e. reaching for goals, such as helping people and solving problems) and learn from the consequences to become a more loving person (i.e., not one is perfect, but hopefully careful thinking will reduce the mistakes, and testing will determine the best outcome) to ensure the concept is right. But perhaps the most important aspect is to let the diversity of living things and human beings to think for themselves and decide on the right course of action. Think critically. Evaluate the evidence, and be prepared to listen and learn from a wider source of information. Don't rely on everything in the Bible or even what God may have said in the past. Even if it is true, are those saying or writing these things down properly applying the principle of love in a modern context and truly helping people to become better versions of themselves and able to help other people in their own unique way? In some way, people may have to write their own gospels and decide what is the right way of doing things, rather than rely on ideas from more than two thousand years ago and thinking they still apply in modern times, even right down to discriminating against those who have different beliefs or different approaches to applying the principle of love on this planet, or who don't go to Church.

In the case of God and what to do when dealing with people in Biblical times, God had to decide what was the best approach to teach the principle of love. Back then, it was a choice of showing a masculine form as a way to influence human society, which was male-dominated at the time (and still is to some extent today). However, the approach taken at the time need not have to be applicable in modern times, especially as people are getting smarter, have access to more information than ever before, and are learning more about various things, including God and the Universe. We cannot assume people today will always live in fear of an authoritarian God and, therefore, require the same technique for teaching people to do the right thing. You can't just constantly punish people if they make a mistake and they want an opportunity to do it right and in a better way. We are not children that may need to be slapped on the wrist for being naughty. We are adults. You need to let people think for themselves and make reasonable decisions on what is the right thing to do. Let people work it out for themselves. Let them talk to experts from a wide range of sources. Let them evaluate the evidence and decide what is important. If you don't, you will end up like the story in the Bible of the father who was commanded by God to kill his only innocent son as a sacrifice to prove he was willing to follow God's word precisely (as in the case of the Old Testament story of Abraham and his son Isaac). As the story goes, the father was willing to do exactly as he was told and had the knife in one hand raised and ready to kill his only son. Why? Is it because you must always follow what God says all the time? Where is the thinking behind all of this? And is this action following the principle of love? As we learn from the story, God saw this and just in a nick of time told Abraham not to do it (because God knows the principle of love was not being applied correctly in this circumstance). But why tell Abraham initially to prove his willingness to follow God's orders with such precision? Well, this is one of the great dilemmas Jewish religious leaders have had to debate and understand. But what they don't know is that the whole situation was a test from God (just like the Garden of Eden and other examples in the Bible) to see how far humans have come and what help might be needed to teach people to do the right thing. If this mysterious so-called God is going to intervene in human affairs, how should God approach humans to teach the principle of love? There are two ways to go about it. Either treat humans like they were children that must follow precise rules they can see with their eyes and do as they are told or else punishment is necessary in order to get people to fear God and follow its teachings precisely, or can we occasionally disobey God at times and make our own decisions if we believe the principle of love is not being applied correctly? This is the fundamental question lying at the heart of the story. Basically how far have we come to understanding the principle of love and how it should be implemented in the real world? To learn the principle, should we be treated more like adults with a little more flexibility, some education, and have the opportunity to make reasonable decisions on our own on what is right, and to go ahead and do it? Or should we be treated like a child being told what to do by a parent all the time? To put it another way, should we let God be our only leader (and occasionally some of the prophets who have appeared from time-to-time because of their connections with God) and let them decide everything about what we should be doing? Or should we become our own leaders, not just in the areas where our interest and expertise lies, but also of our understanding of the principle of love? Of course, no one is perfect. We must acknowledge a higher authority who probably knows a thing or two about love. And as genuine children, it is always good to listen to more knowledgeable and wiser older people. But as people get older, you cannot treat them as children forever. Sure, you may have some people say that we are children in the Universe and with God. But this is just to acknowledge that at times we should be prepared to listen and learn as no one is God. We are not perfect no matter how much of an expert we might become. Even the religious leaders are not God. They have their own interpretations, which may work for them and for some other people, but in other circumstances could still be subject to improvements in order to promote the principle of love in a better way. Yet, at the same time, we have to apply ourselves using this knowledge by making the right decisions for ourselves on how best to apply our knowledge and any extra knowledge we learn to better promote this love to a deeper level with everyone. We can imagine and think through the issues and see what is the balanced and loving approach to solving problems. As soon as we figure it out, we can become leaders again in implementing this knowledge.

Sure, we will make mistakes. We are not perfect. We are still learning to do things in a better way. The critical thing here is that we learn from those mistakes. People will forgive you when they see your good intentions in trying to help as well as evidence of your learning and trying a different approach. The same is true for God. As far as God making mistakes is concerned, it too can experience them occasionally (if they are not tests from God). As we realise that whoever came to influence human societies in the Middle East is not the true God, we can expect it to make some mistakes too. For example, choosing a male voice all the time to influence some humans is now understood not to be the wisest thing to do in the long term after learning what it does to human societies and the treatment of women in the hands of men. Men are no better than women. Everyone makes mistakes and we can all do better. We can be more balanced in our actions and the treatment of others. God will understand our decision to be more balanced. God will realise the folly in its ways. Using a male voice once or twice may have been fine in Biblical times, but not all the time.

Thus, if Abraham did properly understand the principle of love and thought about the situation correctly, he would have realised killing his son was not in keeping with the principle of love. He would have stopped the action himself and told off God that his commandment to kill is not the right thing to do. If God wanted to kill someone, kill the father, but leave the child alone. He has done nothing wrong. Or else the voice that commanded him to kill his only son would have to be seen as not from God, but the opposite. Now that would have put God back in its place, and made God see how humans have passed an important milestone in their intellectual and social development. Humans can think for themselves (finally!). They can apply the principle of love to various different situations without needing God to be there constantly telling people what to do.

Humans have finally come of age and turned into responsible and loving adults.

In which case, do we need God to tell us what to do? Do we need to stick so closely to the Old Testament? Can we do something different that is still in keeping with the principle of love? Why does God need to come done to keep telling us what to do? Are we not capable of figuring it out for ourselves? Are we that dumb and incapable or paralysed that we constantly need to be held by the hand of God to do the right thing? Okay. Nothing wrong to listen occasionally, especially if God decides to have another visit and wants to give us a few lessons. It will know a thing or two about the Universe and we can all benefit from the knowledge. But at least we shouldn't have to be taught the principle of love again, again and again. People should know what to do if they have thought about it themselves. Sure, use the ideas and certain rules or commandments from God from the past as guidance. However, at the end, you must decide what is the best approach to applying the principle of love that truly helps everyone and all living things.

That is the problem with the Old Testament. Too many religious people who follow it can only see fear when it comes to God, not love. Soon they themselves become fearful of doing anything to change events and situations even when they can see the principle of love is not being applied correctly by others. If people fear too much, they will stick to rigid rules or pray all the time until God can return to change things. They effectively become paralyzed in finding a solution on their own. They expect others, a religious leader, or God to provide the answers. And if the religious leader can't find the answer but wants to maintain his position of power in the community, he will say God will provide the answer. When? No one knows. We just have to be patient, and pray. But what many people do not realise is that praying is effectively another way of saying, you are "thinking". And if you do it right, you should come up with a solution. You are telling your mind what the problem is and letting the subconscious mind find a solution. Praying enough is like saying you are thinking enough. Eventually the mind will create a solution. Then it is up to you to decide whether to implement it. However, the additional problem people in Biblical times had to contend with were ruthless leaders hellbent at maintaining power, and using fear of their own to keep people in their place. Some religious leaders understood this. So instead they thought it was better to wait for God (or a prophet who will hopefully have been visited by God) to come back and everything will be solved, or at least tell them what they should be doing, while dealing with the those people in power who are oppressing the rest of the people. People do not want to deal with these poor leaders in society because they fear death itself. Being so L-brain in their thinking that they cannot see beyond death. And they cannot see the power of large numbers in making the social transformation needed in society. Until someone can come along to explain all this and give examples to show there is no fear but only love, forgiveness and compassion, people cannot move forward from the Old Testament. And those who do not believe in God or choose to believe in multiple "gods" will continue in their ways to achieve power and wealth as the only reality they know about.

If we don't think for ourselves and make reasonable decisions and find out if it will solve problems, we can never get past being a child afraid of anything new or different. As a child we seem to fear that a parent might be holding the stick to punish us if we do the wrong thing. The only way we might do something different is if more rules are added to the Ten Commandments. Only problem is, God knows how many more centuries (or should that be in the millennia given how few prophets have appeared throughout history?) people will have to wait (Zzzzzz...) until the next prophet with great wisdom can appear to refine our understanding of the principle of love through extra commandments while having this connection to God to give the hard-headed evidence to the more L-brain religious leaders confidence it is from God. It is clearly going to take a long time. We cannot afford to wait. World problems exist and we still cannot resolve them properly. At some point, we have got to think for ourselves and do the job properly on our own. Don't wait for God to come back and solve our problems. Sure, be aware of God and what it represents (i.e., the epitome of true love) and imagine what God would do to solve problems, but also think for yourself and decide what is right under the principle of love.

For this "next step" for us to become independent "thinkers" with a solid grasp of the principle of love and the confidence to apply our own decisions without fear (and at the same time acknowledge that the only authority we should follow is God and no one else until we are confident of the principle of love), we had to wait another 1,600 years before the next wise man would come along to tell us of this fact. When he finally did arrive (better late than never), it would be in defiance of the older prophets of the past (that is, the ones from the Old Testament, including Moses) and even a number of the Jewish high priests who were following too closely those older prophets and spending a lot of time praying in the temples for divine inspiration and hopefully a solution. Unlike the old men in the past who saw God, this new wise man was a younger person with sufficient knowledge and a solid understanding of the principle of love and God itself to give him the confidence and courage to challenge the human authorities at the time and question their interpretation of the Old Testament stories, the nature of God, and what the principle of love should be all about.

We will have more to say about this young individual later.


The Iron Age is truly upon us when the Greeks developed their own formidable army and iron weaponry. It was a time for Greek legends, such as Achilles, the greatest Greek warrior, who fought in the 10-year war against the Trojans at the city of Troy near the Dardenelles in Asia Minor in the 13th century B.C., to make their mark on the world.

The Greeks relied not just on a strong sense of social skills to stick together and fight the enemy but also displayed unusually intense and brutal male competitions at home (which later gave rise to the idea in the modern world of starting up the less violent Olympic Games). The competitions helped to physically bring out certain individual traits and skills (e.g. throwing spears at seemingly impossible distances, showing signs of remarkable endurance and strength, and much more) that eventually saw certain Greek men reach almost God-like status among their own fellow country men and women and later spawned some amazing tales.

Some of these legendary skills may have been seen by those outside of Greece as "a gift from the gods".


World human population reaches 100 million.


While the Middle East had its fair share of old wise men with an understanding of the principle of love and the importance of living frugally and simply (but with the added complication of God appearing in their lives), on the other side of the world, we learn of another balanced individual who also became disenchanted by the wealth and power accumulated in what was essentially a complicated, hierarchical and profit-driven L-brain society and the subsequent warfare to emerge from this approach. He saw the suffering that most ordinary people had to go through when supporting this approach, as well as life in general. Then one day, he decided to let go of his own material wealth, walked through the forests of India and meditated over extended periods of time. After about a couple of years and without any indication that he had been influenced by a mysterious God, he re-emerged from the forests. What he saw about life and the universe and the simple technique he developed to understand our purpose in life and reach a more balanced mental and spiritual state in a process known as enlightenment would see hundreds of people support him.

His name was Siddhartha Gautama (ca. 563-483 B.C.) and his ability to reach a more balanced state without the use of drugs and instead through meditation power turned out to be the key to breaking free from his own shackles of human conditioning or pre-programmed patterns he had learned from other people in society (including the essence of human language itself), a deeper understanding of the concept of God and other interesting insights. This allowed the man to experience true freedom from all suffering. On seeing this, those who knew the man tagged him the "Awakened One" or simply "the Buddha" by some of his slightly more L-brain followers (the ones inclined to find a word to describe someone and memorise it).

Here is the story of how Siddhartha became a balanced and more spiritually-enlightened individual:

Siddartha Gautama was born in the fifth century BCE.

Siddhartha's father was a Hindu king and his mother died when Siddhatha was still a baby.

When he was born, Siddhartha's parents had his horoscope prepared. This said that he would either be a great ruler or a great spiritual leader. Naturally as his father was the king, he was keen for Siddhartha to be a great ruler so he made sure that while he was growing up he never saw anything to disturb his mind or encourage him to think about things in a deep way.

As Siddhartha reached adulthood his marriage was arranged and some time later he had a son. But he had led a very sheltered life within the Palace estate. As the time for him to become King approached he began to wonder what the world was like beyond the palace, so since he knew his father would disapprove, he arranged to go out secretly, with his friend Channa who was his charioteer.

Siddhartha was enchanted by the world outside the palace, but then he saw something very strange. A man was coming along the street, but he was bent and walking slowly, using a stick. And his hair was grey. Siddhartha had never seen an old man before and when Channa explained that everyone grows old, he was really shocked and upset. So they went back to the Palace.

Next day Siddhartha went out again with Channa. He hoped that he would not see another old man, and he did not - but he saw someone lying down, moaning and covered in sweat, breathing with difficulty. Siddhartha was curious and keen to help the man in some way - but Channa urged him to stay away, explaining that the man was sick. He was suffering from pain and a high fever. Siddhartha was upset, especially when Channa explained that he might catch the sickness if he went too close, and that everyone gets sick once in a while.

On the third day, Siddhartha asked Channa to take him a different way. He did not want to see any old people or sick people this time. All was well until they noticed a group of people approaching. Some people led the procession playing sad music and then some people passed by carrying a narrow bed. A man lay on this but he was covered in cloth which was piled up with flowers. Siddhartha could hardly see the man at all and asked Channa why this man was all covered up and why people were carrying him. Channa explained that this was a dead man. Siddhartha did not understand. When Channa explained about death he was horrified. Everyone has to die? Even his beautiful wife and sweet little son would die? It was unthinkable.

Again his day was ruined and when they went back to the palace Siddhartha was in a very quiet mood, thinking about all the things he had seen, the old man, the sick man and now the dead man. He was deeply shaken up by finding out about all these things.

They went out again next day and this time Siddhartha said he wanted to go somewhere right away from everyone. He just wanted some peace and quiet. So Channa took him down by the river where they could walk together enjoying nature's beauty. And there, by the river, sitting under a large tree, Siddhartha encountered another unusual sight. He saw a Hindu holy man sitting in deep meditation.

Siddhartha asked Channa who this strange man was and what he was doing. Why was he being so lazy? What was he doing with the beads he held? Channa explained that he was a holy man. He was repeating the name of God, using the beads to keep track of his chanting and praying for infinite peace, infinite bliss.

Siddhartha wanted to know what the man was doing. He wanted infinite peace, infinite bliss, himself. But Channa said that they should not disturb the holy man, so they returned to the Palace.

All the things that Siddhartha had seen occupied his mind from that day onwards. He could not go back to his old unconscious life of pleasure. He realised that he must find a way of ending suffering not just for himself, but for his wife and child too — indeed for everyone. Siddhartha decided that he must leave his family and the Palace. No more the life of luxury, he would renounce his former life and embrace the life of an ascetic, a wandering holy man, owning nothing, begging for his food and spending his days in prayer, meditation and spiritual discipline. He had to find a way of overcoming suffering.

After six years of travelling and studying at the feet of the wisest people he could find, practising exercises and disciplines to develop control of his senses — including fasting and practically starving himself — Siddhartha said enough was enough. He sat under a large Bodhi tree at Bodh Gaya in Northern India and vowed that here he would either discover the truth or die in the attempt.

Siddhartha entered into an unusually deep state of meditation and remained there for days if not weeks without moving from the spot. A woman who lived nearby was impressed by his sincerity and intensity. She brought him food each day and he accepted it. He came to see that everything should be done in a balanced way. It is not necessary or helpful to starve the body any more than it is necessary or helpful to live a life of luxury. The middle way is by far the best.

The Buddha never spoke about God but he did describe the demons that attacked him while he was meditating under the Bodhi tree. They were desperate to distract him from his quest for the truth. But he was able to remain in his deep meditation and ignore them completely. As he reached new levels of awareness and understanding, he broke free from the shackles of human ignorance and limitation. He touched the ground and called on the Earth to witness his victory over the demons and his inner achievement.

Siddhartha was now enlightened. He felt that for the first time in his entire life he could see the world as it was, with a new clarity and understanding. He said it was like waking up. 'The Buddha' means 'The Enlightened One".

The Buddha was not sure if it would be possible to share the insights he had discovered, but he met some ascetics who he had known before he was enlightened. They could tell from looking at him that something special had happened to him. They could sense the extraordinary new wisdom and light that radiated from him and they asked him to teach them what he saw. So there, in the Deer Park at Sarnath (near Varanasi, in India) he began his teaching.

The Buddha spent the rest of his life teaching his philosophy and setting up 'The Sangha' a community of Monks and Nuns whose lives were dedicated to following his teachings.

After a very full and fruitful life, at the age of eighty, The Buddha died and entered into his final Nirvana. His students cremated his body and took his ashes to places which were important to them. They erected memorials there and these are still places of Buddhist pilgrimage.

The leading Buddhists met and collected together all his teachings. These were memorised and passed down by word of mouth for many years. Much of a Buddhist Monk's time would be spent in learning the teachings perfectly so that they were passed on unchanged until they were eventually written down.

The religion to emerge from this ordinary man with a heightened sense of reality and understanding of the principle of love and God would affect over 50 per cent of the Indian population 2,000 years later. It would be called Buddhism.

Yet no matter how non-violent the Buddhist religion and the knowledge it promotes might appear, the Universe has a way of showing the opposite just to keep things interesting. Thus, an opposite group of people existed who would disagree with the enlightened one and his beliefs. These are the predominantly L-brain types with power and a willingness to control everyone and everything. Being rich and powerful was the only thing that mattered for these people. And nothing, not even the enlightened one, would be allowed to change the status quo. As a result, this opposing group of people thought it was better to destroy the leaders and followers of this early group of Buddhists for trying to undermine the reality of the L-brain types (mainly a concern of losing the wealth and power acquired under this preferred reality they have created for themselves and force everyone else to support it). It didn't work as word reached a number of leaders and followers of the new religion. The religion would survive after many of the supporters and their leaders quickly escaped the impending warfare and later settled in various parts of India.

2,500 - 2,000 YEARS AGO

Despite more people gaining important knowledge of the principle of love, and living a more balanced, sustainable and simple life (reminiscent of the old men and their families in the Middle East, but without all the fanfare of a God coming down to influence them), certain L-brain societies would continue to exist after intense and regular warfare to acquire territory and fabulous wealth, or else as resources dwindled and became a valuable commodity, people had to survive and fight for the remaining share. These type of societies tended to be large, highly organised, specialised, hierarchical in structure, highly communicative and usually brutal and conquering as a means for those in power to get what they need and want. One can, therefore, surmise that such "rational" skills in creating a L-brain society is a trait well-suited to men with nearly all leaders being exclusively male-dominated. Of particular note in this regard were the Greeks in 231 B.C., and later the Romans from Italy.

At first the mighty Greeks continued using the power of the spear, regular sporting events at home to maximise muscle strength and endurance, and shear numbers of fighting men and horses as the deciding factors in determining the outcome of most, if not all, battles with other nations for a long time. As a result of this knowledge of winning battles, one man became particularly obsessed by the riches of the world and wanted the power to dominate the known world, His name was Alexander the Great and he would use the technology of the spear as well as manpower and cunning war strategies to defeat Egyptian, Syrian and Persian military forces around 231 B.C.

Even the Romans found the Greek army to be a formidable military opponent.

In one legendary account, up to 500 Greek soldiers allegedly managed to stop a Roman military ship from reaching the Greek shores. How? By turning their shields around and using the highly reflective and smooth concave surface to concentrate solar radiation on the ship to the point where it presumably caused the sails to catch fire above 400°C. The idea for this originated from the Greek philosopher Archimedes.

Still, the might of the Roman empire should not be underestimated too. Here, the great "testosterone-smelling" military machine of the Roman civilisation saw men push their horses, soldiers and their new and highly organised fighting techniques, stronger shields, and toughened swords to the limits as they expanded and conquered much of the known Western world. Only those nations that held a sufficiently large and powerful military force or provided something else of value to the Romans succeeded in surviving and maintaining their own unique cultures.

The latter approach was a particular favourite for Cleopatra of Egypt. During her reign as an Egyptian pharaoh, she used her feminine beauty, the power of sex, her mastery in speaking 9 languages (and an intelligent woman who studied geography, history, astronomy, international diplomacy, mathematics, alchemy, medicine, zoology, economics, and other disciplines), and her position as ruler of Egypt, to influence the great Roman leader, Julius Ceasar, and later the General of the Roman military machine by the name of Mark Anthony (also known as the Lord of the East) to spare Egypt from almost certain occupation and destruction by the Romans. Probably a wise choice. Together with other Egyptian wealth, Cleopatra's ability to provide carnal pleasure to the two crucial virile masculine leaders of this strongly L-brain society from Italy made it possible for Egypt to survive for quite a long time.

It was only after the strongly L-brain thinking Roman Octavian (who later changed his name to Augusta Ceasar) saw through Cleopatra's power did her great dream to become the new rulers of the world die with her and her lover Anthony.

After Cleopatra's death, Octavian became the emperor of Rome and the great city of Rome continued to flourish for another 400 years. Eventually the Roman empire would collapse around 476A.D.. Many factors played a part in the collapse, but the most notable were economic mismanagement in Rome and the decision to impose higher taxes, and an increasing number of invading foreign armies that saw the Roman army defeated in more battles than ever before until eventually the Germanic leader Odoacer staged a revolt and deposed the Emperor Romulus Augustulus. It was about this time, when the Roman empire collapsed, that more and more Roman people saw the benefits of taking up the new social ideas from Christians in the early centuries following the death of an unusually "balanced-thinking" young man with an outstanding knowledge of the power of love and how this man essentially sparked the beginnings of Christianity throughout the Western world. Eventually enough converted Romans (mostly men and their wives) accepted the teachings from Christians and allowed the Church to establish a home in Rome. And in the midst of the poverty that ensued across much of Europe for most people over the centuries, men became the controlling figures within the Church to help them survive more easily by forcing ordinary people to pay to receive God's blessings and a chance to go to heaven.

However, if we get back to the earliest Christian teachings, we can begin to understand why humans wage wars and for inequality to exist in society.

You see, the problem with humans throughout history is that too many feel unloved in a world that doesn’t guarantee your survival, and indeed many are not sure they can survive and live comfortably. As a result, there are enough humans who do things to get that love and have their needs met that can potentially affect other people. Sometimes it can be in positive ways, but for some people it can be harmful. In extreme cases, the negative approaches to getting that love and needs met can include fighting with others to acquire enough territory and enjoy the bounty of the land and its people. Hence the reason for most wars. Once some people have what they need and know of no other goals of a more positive nature to help others and themselves when things come back to support them and keep them alive, the insecurities may continue. Then after a while, corruption sets in when people think they can acquire more wealth and power. The need for more wealth and power and to maintain this lifestyle becomes the main goal of the corrupt person. Soon needs turn to wants, and before you know it, there is no limit to how far humans will do to get anything and everything it wants.

That is the fundamental problem for humans. We are still incredibly insecure as a species on this planet. It doesn't know if it will get the love it needs through the things we need to survive and to have that feeling of belonging and being wanted by others and knowing we are valuable to others.

When people show love and give you love that ensures you have what you need and make you happy, there is no need for you to accumulate more wealth and power. Even when there are no people to show their love to you, you must believe and have faith that an all greater and mysterious entity of the Universe will love you and provide you with what you need through the natural environment. You should be happy knowing that what you have got to survive as well as what you are doing to help others to give them what they need will come back to you eventually as love for the very same things you need which in turn will make you happy. Then you should need anything more. Then you return the love to help others survive. Such action feeds on each other and builds trust, friendship, a feeling of belonging, and evetually greater contributions are made by everyone as a form of love. The same is true when you restore the environment and ensure the recycling systems are working optimally. By focusing on what you need, there is absolutely no need to prove anything to anyone, or to show how great an individual you are when achieving things, or need to fight constantly for your survival. We are all great in our own way, and sometimes even greater when we work together on a common goal, or when we allow people to be independent to see new ways of doing things. But humans need to be reminded of this constantly through the love we receive from others and/or from nature in order to know we are okay and we are doing the right thing by everyone. We need to be made aware we are doing the right thing.

We just have to learn to be happy with who we are, what we need, and how we can help others to achieve their goals, not just to meet their basic needs (which is the love they deserve), but also to achieve anything worthwhile and positive of benefit to everyone else (which is part of the love we give to others). Then the same comes back to us for our own needs and when we find some higher goal that we would like to achieve. It is as simple as that.

Deep down, it is having what we need and receiving the love from others that is essentially all humans ever need to be happy. Without it and we are forever insecure in ourselves and what we can get in our lives. We need guidance from others to know what we are doing is a form of love and that we will receive that love in return when we need to survive and continue our life's work.

That is all there is to it.


Between 218 B.C. and 43 B.C., Roman civilians and military soldiers reported seeing UFOs. Most sightings tended to get ignored, but a number of sightings were spectacular enough and seen by enough people to warrant the Roman authorities to record them for posterity.

The space agency NASA has looked at the more authentic UFO accounts in ancient times, of which those Roman UFO sightings written into history are among the ones that the agency considers to be worthy of consideration and study.

Here is a summary (compiled by Richard Stothers) of the main UFOs observed in Italy at around this time, with possible natural explanations included (Stothers, Richard B. 2007, "Unidentified flying objects in classical antiquity":Classical Journal, pp.82-84):

  1. At Rome in the winter of 218 B.C. "a spectacle of ships (navium) gleamed in the sky" (Liv. 21.62.4). Franklin Krauss, for lack of an alternative explanation, speculated that the "ships" were clouds or mirages, although suggestive cloud formations had been long- understood, familiar features.
  2. In 217 B.C, "at Arpi round shields (parmas) were seen in the sky" (Liv. 22.1.9; Orosius 4.15). A parma was a small round shield made partly or wholly of iron, bronze or another metal; we do not know whether the luster of these devices (and not just their shape) was intended to be an element of the description. Mock suns are an unlikely explanation, since in the Roman prodigy lists these were routinely described as "double suns" or "triple suns" (i.e. two mock suns on either side of the real one).
  3. In 212 B.C. "at Reate a huge stone (saxum) was seen flying about" (Liv. 25.7.8). The implication would seem to be that the object in question was a stony gray color; that it is said to have moved irregularly (volitare) leaves open the possibility that the object Livy describes was a bird or some kind of airborne debris.

Sporadic reports of similar objects continue to appear after this in the Roman prodigy lists. The immediate sources are again Livy and his extractors Pliny, Plutarch, Obsequens and Orosius:

  1. In 173 B.C. "at Lanuvium a spectacle of a great fleet was said to have been seen in the sky" (Liv. 42.2.4).
  2. In 154 B.C. "at Compsa weapons (arma) appeared flying in the sky" (Obsequens 17). The term refers to defensive weapons, especially shields.
  3. In 104 B.C. "the people of Ameria and Tuder observed weapons in the sky rushing together from east and west, those from the west being routed." Thus Pliny (Nat. 2.148) who uses the term armafor UFOs is essentially the same as Obsequens’ (43) version. Plutarch (Mar. 17.4) also gave similar support by calling the weapons "flaming spears and oblong shields," but may be merely glossing and expanding; since he noted the time as night, the phenomenon in question might be the streamers of an aurora borealis.
  4. In 100 B.C., probably at Rome, "a round shield (clipeus), burning and emitting sparks, ran across the sky from west to east, at sunset." Thus Pliny (Nat. 2.100), although Obsequens (45) called the phenomenon "a circular object, like a round shield". The clipeus was a round shield similar to the parma, but bigger. Seneca (Nat. 1.1.15; 7.20.2), quoting Posidonius (1st century B.C.), referred to a class of clipei flagrantes, saying that they persisted longer than shooting stars. Nothing in the ancient reports forbids that these were spectacular bolides (meteoric fireballs), which move across the sky more slowly than ordinary shooting stars, but enormously faster than genuine comets, which are seen for days or weeks.
  5. In 43 B.C. at Rome "a spectacle of defensive and offensive weapons (armorum telorumque species) was seen to rise from the earth to the sky with a clashing noise." It might be possible to visualize in this report a bolide exploding while rising above the horizon.


The earliest known device that could have been designed as a battery for storing electric charges appeared in the first century A.D.

In 1936, archaeologists working for the Iraqi Antiquities Authority unearthed a jar roughly 14 cm tall. On removing the asphalt seal, they found a tube of copper surrounding an iron rod. The two metals did not make contact. They were held in place by more asphalt. Wilhelm Koenig, an Austrian who served as director of Baghdad Museum at the time, looked at the strange jar. Apart from the fact that it was constructed by someone living in the Parthian empire, the Parthians were not noted for any special engineering or technical prowess. Yet, somehow, this jar excavated from a site of Khujut Rabou near Baghdad looked remarkably like a battery.

Experiments to replicate the design and add an acid such as salt water, copper sulphate, citrus juice or vinegar, can produce a measurable voltage. Salt water was the least useful as it quickly corroded the iron, causing the voltage to drop after 60 seconds. Copper sulphate was better, allowing a voltage of 0.45 volts to be maintained for several hours until the copper plated the iron rod, which in effect stopped any further production of electricity, assuming this was the purpose. However, a mixture of acetic acid (or vinegar) and grapefruit juice produced 0.49 volts for several days. (Keyser, "The Purpose of the Parthian Galvanic Cells," pp.88-92.)

After uncovering more "batteries" from the Sassanid Period, archaeologists remain baffled by what use the Parthians had for these little jars. Definitely no motors were found near these jars, and certainly no thin filament metals to heat up at night to become electric lights (a common feature of glowing UFOs). The only clue one can fathom is that a number of the jars were stuffed with papyrus, and may have come with magical amulets. (Keyser, "The Purpose of the Parthian Galvanic Cells," p.82; James and Thorpe, Ancient Inventions, pp.148-149.)

The most likely explanation is that these jars were either a means of preserving papyrus scrolls and anything else the Parthians thought would stand the test of time once the jars were sealed, or it is possible the Parthians may have discovered electricity and used it to treat certain medical conditions. Certainly the Egyptians were known to have used (and still do to this day) the electric catfish from the River Nile to treat headaches and nerve pain. The voltages need not have been high to treat pain. Modern medical literature claims anywhere between 0.8 and 1.4 volts and 0.2 to 1.0 milliamps is sufficient. This is roughly in the range of how much electricity the Baghdad jars could technically produce if an acid was added to them.

Perhaps the Parthians had accidentally found another way to create electricity for this very purpose?


The early Greeks reported seeing UFOs. The Greek biographer and historian Plutarch (46—120 A.D.) recorded the most spectacular passed down over generations by word-of-mouth with reasonable details of the event thanks to many eye-witness accounts, including when it occurred and roughly over the area where it happened. It was enough for Plutarch to make the decision to write it down. The UFO was observed minutes before the start of a battle during the third Mithridatic war (75—63 B.C.).

At the time of the sighting, Lucullus and his Roman army were preparing for battle to fight against Mithridates, the king of Pontus, and his ally Marcus Marius who was dispatched by Sertorius. When the UFO arrived and made its spectacular glowing appearance over the sky and close enough to witnesses to make out its shape, the sighting was enough for the armies to withdraw from the battle as it was seen as a sign of the gods' displeasure at the event that was about to unfold on the ground.

Here is the best English translation and interpretation of the extract concerning the UFO incident:

"With these words, he [Lucullus] led his army against Mithridates, having thirty thousand foot soldiers, and twenty-five hundred horsemen. But when he had come within sight of his enemies, he was amazed by the number of people. He desired to avoid and delay the battle. However, Marius, who was dispatched from Iberia [Spain] by Sertorius to provide an army to join forces with Mithridates, got set for battle. As the armies were on the verge of commencing the fight, without any observable change in the weather, the air opened and appeared a rapidly descending and large flame-like object, which appeared like a wine jar or vase in shape and like a glowing annealed metal in colour. Both armies, astonished and frightened by the sighting decided to withdraw. They said that this happened in Phrygia, at a place called Otryae." (*.html and This account of the UFO sighting compiled by SUNRISE.)


A new young religious and social leader appeared in the Middle East at this time to bring ideas and ways of living based on the principle of love and the concept of balance (and God) to, yet again, an oppressed people in Israel and Palestine. It was a time when Roman occupation manifested itself in this part of the world for the sake of power and the accumulation of wealth.

The young man, named Jesus Christ, was born in the town of Bethlehem on 17 April in 6 B.C. Scientists know this is the correct date because scientists have gathered the latest astronomical analysis of the sky and noticed an unusual event consisting of a sudden appearance of a bright light in the northern morning sky under the constellation Aries by the planet Jupiter as it passed out of the lunar eclipse. No such unusual event existed in or around the 1 AD mark, as revealed in the BBC documentary Son of Man).

The young man came into the world in somewhat unusual circumstances. The mother, named Mary (a popular name for women at this time) who gave birth to this man, claimed he was born to a virgin girl. As practically everyone in those days understood, a pregnant female had to have experienced some form of sexual intercourse with a male and, therefore, should have a reasonable knowledge of who the father was, it would be impossible for anyone in these times to imagine a virgin having a child. Not unless, of course, there was an acknowledged miracle. Interestingly, we see no evidence from the Bible or in modern times to suggest that people were disagreeing with Mary on this very claim. Yet, at the same time, she needed to keep quiet. Without an obvious father to point the finger at and with a child about to be born, the possibility of this woman having sex out of weblock was dangerous. It would be seen as falling into the temptation of lust, one of the original sins from the Old Testament and one that is not supported by previous prophets or even many of the Jewish men in Mary's time. Indeed, a woman found to have consented to sex outside marriage could be condemned to death by stoning. Yet somehow the woman had to find a man who was open-minded and willing to accept her claim and allow her child to be born.

Interesting. So who exactly was the real biological father? The only indications of something odd entering Mary's life comes from her own statements. She claims a mysterious entity, described as an angel named Gabriel, arrived unexpectedly and began talking to her to get her consent that God would get her pregnant. She would not notice anything unusual or how the conception would be achieved. No indications of sexual intercourse would take place, at least during her waking, conscious self, Mary had to assume she was still a virgin despite ending up carrying a child.

Oil painting by Carlo Crivelli of Mary's Annunciation.
Italian artist Carlo Crivelli (1430/5-c.1494) painted in 1486 using egg and oil on canvas his own interpretation of Mary's Annunciation. Notice the decision by the artist to paint the angel as a symmetrical flying object emitting a beam of light.
Oil painting by Carlo Crivelli of Mary's Annunciation - Close Up of UFO.
Close-up of the symmetrical flying object.

Assuming God has made another triumphant return to influence human kind in a far more direct manner (sounds like humans are still having trouble learning about the principle of love), it seems as if artificial insemination may have been how this was achieved. Of course, in reality, no one really knows. And without evidence of who God is, it is a matter of speculation. Still, at least from a scientific perspective, one can see how a woman might describe herself as a virgin and still carry a child.

Nothing more would be heard from this external influencer until she realised she was carrying a child. As a single female with a child was often frowned upon by the Jewish community, she was lucky to have located a compassionate and open-minded male who seemed to be unusually understanding to her strange predicament and took her in as his wife. His name was Joseph.

Fortunately, one problem solved for God and Mary.

Apart from a coincidental astronomical event in the sky by the unusually bright Jupiter and the appearance of some old men who seemed to have received word under mysterious circumstances of the arrival of the child, little more can be gleaned about this mysterious God or what was happening in the lives of Mary and her husband, Joseph.

As for the child, he too remained mysterious in his early years. Nothing to suggest that he had anything more than a relatively ordinary childhood. However, we do start to see glimpses of his potential to think and be highly independent an a young boy when he decided to emerge and on occasions walk away from his parents without seeking permission and enter the religious temple. This was noted briefly by his brother James. On trying to find his older "enlightened" sibling, he would discover his brother had entered the Jewish temple talking to older priests and listening in on some of the religious teachings.

Hardly anything more was known of the boy until one day, as a young man, he moved away into another neighbouring town to begin his life's work as a religious Jewish leader. It was about this time that he decided to officially "emerge into the real world" outside the temple to start solving some social issues of the day, especially for the many things he saw and felt confident he could tackle.

The young man would show remarkably clear and insightful knowledge about the principle of love. He kept mentioning to the people who were willing to listen about the kind of world everyone could live in by following this principle. He would call this the Kingdom of God. A kind of ideal world where everyone can have what they need and be happy by following the principle of love, which would naturally include making the environment productive for everyone and in seeing other lifeforms as playing an equal part in supporting the system in order to have what we all need by way of food.

If God did make a comeback at this time and could listen in on his early teachings, one can imagine it would have been proud of this man's efforts so far. The only thing is, did the man receive help from God in this area? Or did he work it out on his own? No one knows for sure.

There was something different about this young social and religious prodigy that wasn't in keeping with the other priests and what they were doing at the time. He was particularly well "balanced" and knowledgeable about the principle of love and the concept of God. perhaps more so than any other religious leader of his times. Why the exceptional insights and knowledge? The best we can say is that he would think more independently compared to any of his contemporaries, and to a deeper level using his prodigious imagination and strong rational thinking skills acquired through his training in carpentry with the help of his fatherly figure named Joseph. Or did he receive some quiet training or help from someone else? We can never be sure. What we do know is that he was prepared to disagree on teachings from the older religious leaders of the day. And at other times, he would listen carefully to see what religious leaders knew about God, the principle of love, and what to do for the various social issues that prevailed in society at the time. Some of this he would internalise, as he slowly formulated his broader and more balanced ideas.

The young man's independence also rubbed off, usually in the wrong way, on his family too. We see some evidence of this in the Bible. For example, the young man's desire to live a fiercely independent life can be seen from his early decision to leave the family and find a separate roof over his head (he would only allow a few Jewish men to be with him because they wanted to and were prepared to try something different too after listening to this young man's views, but still needed his help to give them the confidence and knowledge to go out there and do the same). At other times, the level of independence from his mother and other family members was unsurpassed and sometimes created conflict in the family. Could there have been a falling out with his enstranged father Joseph at around this time? Little if anything is known about Joseph when the young lad started his religious teachings. A bit unusual. Perhaps Joseph wanted the young man to continue his carpentry work and carry on the business only to find that the young man he was teaching had other ambitions. Or was Joseph separated from Mary due to some quarrels in the home, or did he die unexpectedly? No one knows. Only Mary, the mother of the young man, would appear throughout his life at various times, showing her love as would any mother for her only son. Whatever really happened, it seems as though the young man would make his own decisions, going out to visit the temple without informing anyone in the family of his whereabouts was just one example. It was the kind of independence that must have been essential in the man's early upbringing, and gave him enough exposure as a young boy to the current religious knowledge so he can formulate his own ideas.

Then the young man developed a new understanding of the concept of God (which he found the Jewish priests to be terribly confused and/or misinterpreting of what it meant). He also understood the difference between God and god. In fact, he thought we were all gods in the way we can change and influence things, but always made sure it was never the same as God. How did this young man know so much about God? Did he meditate deeply enough to see through the problem? Or was he helped along the way to make him realise who or what God really is? It is hard to tell.

From the way he spoke about God in his teachings, he seems to believe in something localised that would come down to affect the world. And in the initial phase of understanding God, he seem to have accept the "our Father" or masculine form of God in his communications and early teachings. Yet, at the same time, he understood it was important to believe in only one God, and yet he wanted to see everyone as "gods" with the ability to influence and change events on the ground. He wasn't expecting the one and only true God to change the world and sort out the mess caused by the Roman occupiers and anyone else who was corrupted by greed and power. He felt ordinary people on the street had the power to make things right. All that was needed is for people to feel confident, to ensure the principle of love was understood, and to stop the fear people have of doing the right thing and start changing history for the better.

What made him believe God was localised and able to come down when it wanted? Did he really understand the concept of God? Or did he really see God to help him make that interpretation or support the Jewish religious teachings of a masculine God? Again we may never know the answer.

Whatever he saw, the young man did have a bit of a disagreement with the Jewish priests about this God concept. In an attempt to straighten out the misunderstanding, he stated, "Is it not written in the scriptures that you are gods?" showing that he understood the difference between god and God (and so did the writer) and what humans should be doing if they are gods themselves with the power to influence and change things. Not so for the other priests. Whether this was the way God and god sounded when spoken in the Aramaic language which was too similar and confused the priests, it would appear that there was a view that the young man had allegedly committed blasphemy by claiming he himself was "God" (and not just "god").

This is not a good outcome for Jesus.

As the priests quite rightly said, no one can be God. The young man understood this too, but the priests could not understand how he and other people can be called "gods". In fact, this very issue of god or God would haunt the young man right throughout his life as some spiteful Jewish priests would never let go of this serious "blasphemy" claim. And certainly they would not see him as the "son of God", which is another way of saying you are a "god" (it was likely Jesus attempted to resolve the conflict with the priests by elaborating on what he meant) even though today, technically speaking, we are all "sons and daughters of God", or the "children of God". No one was allowed to elevate themselves to a position that could be equal to that of God. Yet the priests could not see how "son of God" (or "daughter of God") is the same as being called "a god". It is still part of "God's family". The hierarchy with God is still maintained without breaking the fundamental rule of the Universe. When the hierarchy is established to help people to learn something and get a better insight into the principle of love, they are like the "children of God" with its parent (i.e., God, in all its balanced masculine and feminine properties that appear to us). There is the old masculine-like "father" figure in God commonly found in the Old Testament scriptures, and the newer feminine-like compassionate and forgiving "mother" figure in God commonly found in the New Testament scriptures. However, under no circumstances do we attempt to equate the "god" tag on people (i.e., "the children") with God (i.e., "the parent"). The terms "god" and "God" are totally different things. The only thing that is similar is the ability to "influence" and "change" certain things, and hopefully it is done with love based on our knowledge. Otherwise, the difference is that people are likely to make mistakes and must learn to be more loving. So they must be "god", and certainly not a true God. God is already the "expert" in love and balance. People must imagine what this must be like and relate it to their situation to see whether the love is actually there. Still, the priests could not understand what the young man was saying.

Not even the Romans were any better as they preferred to worship any kind of god, including animals. The multiplicity of god was everywhere to be seen. All one had to do was visit the homes of Romans and in the city of Rome and see the variety of different gods represented in statue form. Here we have a complete misunderstanding of the concept of God.

Yet despite a clearer understanding of the concept by the young man, what eventually got Jesus into considerable trouble with the Jewish religious elites was when he was asked whether he was God, and later "the Messiah" which is the closest thing to being called God. As the words "God" and "god" are virtually indistinguishable even in the Aramaic language when spoken and the young man claimed he was god (but not God) and tried to avoid the term "the Messiah" and instead choose "son of God" to provide clarification, this still got him into all sorts of trouble. The priests were interpreting his answers as if he was God, and certainly they did not believe Jesus to be God (and hence "the Messiah"). Eventually all this would come back to haunt him later when the unforgiving, unimaginative and spiteful priests found a way to have the man killed by the Romans.

If all this wasn't enough, the young man disagreed over yet another fundamental aspect regarding God: the unwavering view from Jewish priests of an authoritarian God that was willing to punish people as revealed in the Old Testament, even for those who make simple mistakes or have to find ways to survive. To test this theory, Jesus had to do the work on the ground by visiting a variety of different people. Here, he would talk and learn from certain people in society about why they had to do what they did. A classic example would be the prostitutes in the town who would be described by Jewish religious leaders and their supporters as sinners. From there, Jesus quickly formulated in his mind a better understanding of the various factors that were controlling the apparently "sinful" situation and causing people to do things that perhaps they shouldn't or somehow felt forced to do in order to survive. Eventually, Jesus understood the importance of forgiveness for those people who were stuck in situations they couldn't get out of. The idea of forgiving someone and helping them out of a difficult situation (e.g., to join his group) became an essential part of the young man's new teachings and dealings with certain sinners. He did this because he saw a more compassionate and "feminine" side to God, which is kind of in direct contradiction to the official view of God in the Old Testament. But here too we find further conflict taking place with other Jewish religious leaders of the day. In particular, the power to forgive can only be granted by God himself, not a human like Jesus. Otherwise, Jesus would be effectively saying to the world that he is God. Again another dangerous thing to face for the young man.

This may also explain why Muslims also feel Jesus was not God or the "son of God" in its own religious teachings. In the Qur’an (the equivalent of the Bible in Christianity based on the Arabic teachings of another Prophet named Muhammad who lived in the 7th century), Muslims believe the power to forgive someone belongs to God and only to God, for it asks:

"Who can forgive sins except Allah?" (3.135)

It is a view shared by Jewish religious leaders when we read in Mark 2:5–7 of the New Testament:

"And Jesus seeing their faith said to the paralytic, 'Son, your sins are forgiven.' But some of the [Jewish] scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, 'Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?' "

Here is another example, this time from John 5:21–23:

"For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes. For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgement to the Son, so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him."

Now we can see why the term "son of God" was affecting other Jewish religious leaders. The problem these leaders were seeing is how this strange man named Jesus was essentially performing the same forgiving acts as God would and acting as though this power was given to Jesus as if he was "the Messiah".

At any rate, Jesus would supplement his knowledge of a compassionate God and the power to forgive so-called "sinners" in the eyes of Jewish people with a thorough understanding of the principle of love considered by his contemporaries to be more all-encompassing of different people and their circumstances, irrespective of gender, race, or the unfortunate circumstances some people found themselves in. Thus, radical statements such as "love thy enemy" as well as looking after the sick and destitute who were often being ostracised and seen by Jewish people as a sign of God's unhappiness and willingness to punish people for whatever sins these people had apparently committed became a normal part of his life's work.

What we do know is that the young man did gather a deep insight of why people fought and accumulated wealth and power, how these people were more likely to become corrupt in their thinking and ways of doing things, why people would get harmed by the actions of these corrupted people, why the pyramids in Egypt were built, why the Romans were occupying the lands, and anything else he saw in these dysfunctional leaders in this part of the world. He certainly understood the issue of death and why some people were keen to extend their lives at the cost of others, and the innumerable statues of different gods that people seem to be worshipping thinking the problems of the world would be solved if the gods can be made to be happy and later hopefully give the humans something in return. He also understood why poverty existed and could see how diseases would develop in humans from the way people went about their lives and not given the knowledge of good hygiene and being clean. He could also see what the Jewish priests were doing, and this was not in keeping with the young man's idea of how to solve world problems. In some ways, the priests were waiting for the return of God or the Messiah to solve the problems and would spend more time praying in the hope of receiving the divine inspiration or intervention, whichever would come first. From all these observations he could see a solution. But in order to implement the solution, something had to change.

Firstly, the young man had to see himself as a "god" capable of doing good in the world and making changes.

Secondly, the young man had to change his own life. Kind of get his own backyard in order so to speak by simplifying things and choosing to live more frugally. Already his family did the right thing in this regard. The young man wanted to keep it simpler and learn to be happy with what he had. In that way, he believed all people should be able to experience this happiness and contentment in life by at least sticking to what we need and not what we want. There is no need to be wealthy to be happy and constantly fighting and protecting oneself from others whio also want to have the same things. Having what you need is more than enough to achieve this. And there is enough for everyone to have what they need. This in turn would increase the security and enjoyment of life, with far less stress, and knowing there is love at all times through the things that keep us alive and happy. It is not about trying to grab everything we want thinking this will bring us greater happiness. In the long-term, it doesn't. It only makes us more insecure and afraid, knowing that someone else could decide to fight and acquire the same things, which in many cases is likely to be done by stealing and killing others to acquire the wealth. It is safer and better to stick to what you need to survive and the essentials things needed to achieve certain worthwhile goals. Hence, you live simply, help one another (including providing the things we need), develop deeper and more meaningful relationships, and treat people well and with kindness. If you do, he realised there would be no need for wars, and people would be genuinely happy and live in harmony with one another. There is no crime when people are happy and have what they need. People would live in genuien peace (and hence more time to think and come up with original and great long-term solutions to any problems set before them or wish to pursue for the benefit of everyone else) so long as we all understood death was not meant to be the end, but just the beginning to a new adventure. God will take care of this aspect for all living things in its own mysterious way, as well as letting God (helped along a bit by us through our knowledge and efforts) provide everything people need (i.e. recycling and growing foods) as well as to resurrect those who have died. Everything will be in balance and in abundance in due course if we all play our part in doing the right thing in what is effectively a heaven on Earth if we so choose.

This is the heaven by which the young man would call the Kingdom of God.

This was perhaps his most important lesson of life.

Now he only needed to let everyone know about these ideas in a way that would convince the masses it is okay to make the changes and live a simpler life. He wanted everyone to realise their potential in achieving great change. In that way, even he could achieve the social change he wanted to see on a grand scale with the help of others. It cannot be a one man effort (or a one God effort).

Once he was in a position of stability in his own home and able to think freely and independently of everyone else, especially the influence from his family, Jewish priests, and the Romans, and had the clarity of thought to know what to do next, it was time the young man began to tackle a number of problems in the outside world using his knowledge and insights.

Among the first things the man did to change people's lives was the decision to break the power held by the Jewish priests over the people because of what the old religious scriptures said and how the priests went about their work. He saw how incapable the priests were in solving problems and helping the people. These religious leaders were protecting their position of power by controlling the people as the Romans wanted and spent too much time praying and not enough action. They were waiting for the next true prophet from God or for God himself to arrive and all the problems will be solved. Certainly, they would not see the young man as potentially being the next prophet, or for themselves to be "gods" in changing the situation and influencing those to do things better in order to solve world problems. It became clear the young man had to do the work himself.

The young man would not be ostentatious about what he had to do. In fact, it would be the opposite. And for good reason too as we shall learn, at least in the early stages of commencing his life's work. The surreptitious manner in which he began his work can be seen at the temple where the young man frequented and gathered his essential training.

Here, the young man knew the place provided an abundant fresh underground water supply. A natural spring was bubbling up from underground with its rich levels of minerals. Only problem is, the water was being protected by the priests as if it had special powers or was holy water. And they felt it was their privilege to hold this resource to themselves because of their work to understand God. Or maybe it was just the fact that it was clean and drinkable and made people feel good. More a placebo effect? Or maybe it contained trace minerals, such as calcium, potassium, magnesium, bicarbonate and sodium, to aid in the improved health of people who could drink from it. Whatever the truth, the only problem was, the resource was being locked up from the people either because the priests felt entitled by God to own it and was essential in the priests work to get closer to God (for divine inspiration and a solution to the social problems), or they did not want other people to contaminate the water. If people got diseases, it must have been God's way of punishing people for any wrongdoing. More praying and following the ten commandments from Moses was needed to be in the good books of God before people could get better. Whatever it was that made the priests so controlling of the fresh water, the young man saw it was wrong. Furthermore, he became acutely aware of the health benefits of being properly bathed in fresh water, for which many people did not have. So, it seems the number one decision in this young man's mind was to give people access to this clean water by helping to bath them secretly at night (and even on the Sabbath).

This was also a time when this young man probably had knowledge of some medicinal plants that could have aided in his treatment of common human diseases, and to use this opportunity when bathing the people to refine his techniques in administering the treatments.

As more and more people felt cured of certain diseases that they thought was incurable (and thus may have been seen as a miracle from God), they become more receptive to listening to this ideas about the kingdom of God and how it can be attained. He seemed unusually well-informed and confident in the knowledge he acquired and was willing to share it with others. Among the concepts being presented to the people was in a kingdom of God and who could enter it, and who would not. He began presenting certain stories to teach people about the principle of love. But there was one more concept that the young man realised later in his life was stopping others from making the necessary social change for the better: it concerns the issue of death. He didn't realise this at first, but later he saw what was holding back the people. They were afraid to be the agents of change due to the fact that the Romans could easily have them killed.

Somehow the young man had to convince ordinary folks not to be afraid of death. The shear numbers would effectively make the Romans incredibly insecure and not have the manpower to deal with it. The possibility of having the Romans retreat and return to Italy was there if enough people could get together and rise up against the occupiers. Until that time comes, somehow people have to be convinced that dying is not a bad thing and is not meant to be the end for all of us. How could Jesus show to the people the truth behind death as he understood it? It is hard to know for sure how the young man saw the issue of death other than claiming that God will understand and forgive your actions if what you have done in your life is to show love to others in the best way you know how. Then you can experience what this young man called everlasting life. Whether that is to join with God in some kind of heaven, or an experiencing of the endless cycle of life and death, and back to life again, it is not entirely clear.

Eventually he made a very odd decision to use himself as an example of how to survive after death with the help of God to bring him back to life.

Until that moment came and saw a way to let the Jewish priests have him punished by the hands of the Romans, people had to contend with the view from the Jewish priests that there was a heaven and possibly a chance to see God, or else go to hell. There is no in between, and there is no expectation that people can change and become better in their application of the principle of love over time. If you sin, you are automatically seen as a bad person, and there is little chance of forgiveness from the type of God the priests had understood from the Old Testament. Unless you sudden got healthy again, or choose to do something different, it had to be assumed that God was punishing you. Not so for the young man. It is no wonder the young man was having increasing conflicts with the priests. He was willing to challenge traditions based on his own understanding of God and the principle of love.

However, the elite Jewish priests were not the only ones the young man found to be a problem (instead of being a solution). The Romans were another source of contention. These uninvited foreigners arrived before he was born and would occupy his homeland with a stranglehold that was unparalleled in the known world at the time. Roman brutality was commonly dished out to the people as a way of maintaining power. Any sign of dissent among the local Jewish and Palestinian people would be quickly dealt with in a harsh manner by the Romans. If that was not enough, fear was introduced into the people through a particularly harsh measure of punishment. Among the things people feared the most was crucifixion — a brutal Roman idea of causing maximum suffering to an individual while being pinned by large metal nails through the wrists and feet until sufficient blood loss and/or the shock of the experience kills the victim. Hardly anyone can survive this. There was one report of a survivor who lived his days after the crucifixion, but since then, the Romans added the terrible act of breaking the victims legs to make sure they died properly from the shock and intense pain. Otherwise, Romans were known to be efficient in crushing rebellions unless somehow the number of people involved were too great for the Romans to handle. This was the only thing that worried the Romans. Perhaps this was the quiet aim of the young man? To use sheer numbers of people to change the view of the Roman authority and stop the occupation as an important way to make the necessary social change.

The young man did have his own personal views about the Romans, and it wasn't one of great fondness to say the least. He preferred the Romans stopped interfering in the affairs of the people and show more kindness, while at the same time stopped seeking wealth and power. It did not mean that he would not help the Romans, especially those who were kinder to the people. In one story, a Roman centurion with a young male slave asked Jesus to help heal his slave. At first the young man tried to ignore the request, but on hearing more about the plea for help and seeing the person who was asking, the young man stopped and listened. It wasn't long before he was moved sufficiently to help the slave and assist the Roman. Then he made his famous statement to the people (mostly the Gentiles) saying that he felt this Roman was showing more faith in him and his ideas that any of the Jewish priests and many of their Jewish followers. Since then, he did find some Romans in his local area to be sympathetic to his cause as they could not see a problem with his work (at least at a local level and no signs of any exterior motive for helping so many people), much to the dismay of other Jewish priests who did not want this young man to rock the boat and undermine the position of power held by the priests over the people.

Were some of the Jewish priests receiving benefits from the Romans to ensure the people were kept in control? Probably. To the young man, he probably wanted the opposite to happen, but to do it in a way that promoted the principle of love. Only one problem: not enough people were going ahead to make the changes. They were afraid of something else.

While the Romans were unaware of his ultimate aim from the young man, the Jewish priests could do nothing to stop this man while the Romans were effectively "protecting him" in the local town where he lived and allowing him to go about his work.

So what was stopping the people from doing the right thing? It had to do with the fear people had of death and the suffering they could endure.

On seeing the brutal methods employed by the Romans to control the population, many chose to keep quiet, be somewhat apathetic to the whole situation, and instead for some to listen to this young man's interesting ideas as a way to imagine themselves out of a difficult problem. So the young man eventually had to not only teach people about the afterlife, but finally made the very brave point to all regarding the nature of death by putting himself through the process. Perhaps a foolish thing to do. Then again, the young man was unusually confident about something. Did he know what would happen and how we might survive it? There are indications that Jesus was confident he would be assisted by God to help the young man get revived and brought back to his people. Was there a secret discussion with God at some point where he explained what he had to do and how God would play its part to help push through the idea about what happens at the moment of our passing? Did God agree and was ready to assist at the right time?

Whatever the truth, what happened next was that the man did endure horrific brutality at the hands of the Romans through the crucifixion, no thanks to some spiteful Jewish priests who wanted the man to be killed (mainly on the blasphemy charge and certainly not to see this strange man as having any connection to God and under no circumstances would they allow this man to undermine the authority and position of power held by the priests). Jesus was in Jerusalem at the time and away from the protection of the Romans in his home town. Jesus took the risk of coming to the city.

The young man had opportunities prior to arriving in the city to show some miracles and teach a number of people, and to help them think and understand his parables as a way oif getting people to see the principle of love in action and what happens when we don't do the right thing. But on the day he was condemned to die on the cross, he had to bear the pain of being tortured and beaten by a number of Roman soldiers. The man was bleeding profusely around the head from the numerous large thorns of a bush used as a crown for his head and pushed in hard until it made significant cuts. He was also whipped badly. Blood loss was enough for him to struggle to find the energy to keep himself up let alone carry the heavy wooden cross he was expected to do. As soon as the man went into a coma on the cross (and withstood the decision by the Romans to pierce his ribs with a spear, but unusually not break his legs at the request of the the mother and his followers) and kept cool and wet from the rains and later inside a cave, it appears that he was taken away by some mysterious entity during the night. A couple of Romans guarding the entrance way to the cave saw the spectacle in the sky and was approaching them and this was enough for the men to run away. The next morning, and with no one around to witness what went on during the night, the body was found missing from the cave by the mother Mary followed by another unusual sighting, this time of a mysterious angel at the doorway to the cave who was attempting to alleviate her concerns and explain his son was alive.

Then somehow, after a few days, the young man returned to his closest disciples, his mother, and a few friends at a secret location. Not perfectly healed. Signs of the severe damage to the wrists and feet can be seen. Even God could not do a perfect job of repairing the damage. Even the man's appearance was not exactly as he was before he got arrested and pinned to the cross, but after seeing the wounds and looking more closely into his eyes, his disciples eventually recognised him. As further evidence of the reality of his revived body, witnesses observed the man ate the food he was given. It was then that people realised the speed of his recovery was unlikely to be natural. They had no choice but to think God had intervened in the process to revive the man.

Whether this is true or not, the only other time that the people closest to the man (i.e., the disciples) would actually acknowledge God's presence was in one spot in the desert. Occurring not long after he was revived and returned to his loved disciples (where he would further provide teachings to a woman named Mary Magdalene, to test the male disciples over some gender issue, and eventually anoint them, including Mary Magdalene, as apostles), he had to explain that it was time for his departure. Soon a spectacular aerial event was shown to everyone out in the middle of the desert with all the usual fanfare, such as the big cloud appearing in the sky (where God had allegedly resided) and the usual flying lights representing angels of which one had descended to pick up the man and ascend back into the cloud. All the disciples (including Mary Magdalene) were present to witness the event according to the Book of Acts written by one of the apostles named Luke, and in the Gnostic texts written by Mary Magdalene.

An attempt to portray this interesting event, unfortunately without Mary Magdalene present, can be seen in the 2016 movie Risen directed by Kevin Reynolds.

In other words, this young man — known simply as Jesus Christ — did not physically die on the cross and spiritually he was risen by God as modern Christian leaders are led to believe. Apparently, Jesus did survive the ordeal in a physical sense, was revived with the help of God, was sent back to his close followers, and eventually he was taken away under unusual circumstances with all the apostles able to witness the spectacular event.

Other than that, we now know that Jesus knew more than a thing or two about God and the difference between "God" and "god", as well as a thorough understanding of the principle of love, and his skills to heal the sick through his medicinal knowledge. So deep and powerful was his understanding that he was prepared to "love thy enemy" in a way that many of his contemporaries found it hard to understand. Even today, you will hear governments claim that they will not talk to terrorists and instead continue to use violent means to stop certain people as presumably the only solution. But from the perspective of this man, he would choose a non-violent approach. Negotiate. Talk to your so-called "enemy". Understand why. Make sure everyone has what they need. And learn to live within our means and not interfere with others that might affect their survival. Or at least show some respect. Understand the circumstances and what others are going through. Learn why people do what they do. How can we solve the problems in a peaceful way? That is how we get to a permanent long-term solution that will benefit everyone (i.e., a win-win situation).

Because of his remarkable efforts to affect a large number of people through his teachings and healing abilities (and the work of the apostles ensured more people would hear about the teachings), a new religion was formed in his honour and to promote his teachings, known as Christianity.


Christianity would not spread across the world as quickly as one would think. Part of the problem concerns the Jewish religious leaders: Many of whom still refused to accept the possibility that Jesus could have had some connection to God. Even despite the exceptional knowledge of the principle of love and his considerable understanding of the concept of God, and the possibility that he was resurrected except no one close to Jesus wanted to mention it at the time for fear the Jewish leaders might want to kill Jesus again, Jewish priests were not going to have a bar of it from the Christian followers. In these leaders' eyes, Jesus was just an ordinary bloke who spoke in a blasphemous way. So, without evidence of the man having returned and healed very quickly to make them think that perhaps this guy may have received miraculous medical help from a mysterious entity called God, it seems none of the Jewish leaders wanted to have any dealings with this strange young man and his ideas. They were still hung up about the alleged blasphemy expressed by the young man as a result of their poor understanding of the concept of God.

Another factor to affect the spread of the new religion can also be seen in Rome. Certain Roman leaders thought the only good Christian was a dead one, especially in the arena where many Christians got killed in battles with well-trained brutal male warriors known as gladiators, as well as being eaten alive by deadly animals (lions, bears etc.).

Another thing to slow the spread of the new religion was the continued hung up of the male apostles of Christianity with their Jewish religious background (the ones who should have dropped the Jewish title and its traditions altogether in favour of a new, more modern and clean religious start) over the gender issue and whether the opposite gender could become religious leaders in their own right. This is evident from the Gnostic texts when we see Jesus presenting his final teachings to his closest disciples just before he left the Earth. There was also a private teaching (whatever it was) with Mary Magdalene. It would appear that none of the male disciples realised the extra teaching had occurred with the woman although they were aware that occasionally Jesus and Mary would get together in a room and the door closed to do something. One must presume some private teachings had taken place of knowledge the males already knew about. But if there were extra teachings, why wasn't it shared with all the male disciples?

Today this is understood to be a test to see whether all the male disciples would forgive her (and, thus, the Teacher), and to continue accepting women in the group and as valuable contributors to religious discussions and, ultimately, become religious leaders. However, the few male apostles, notably Peter, who could not let go of the Old Testament of their Jewish faith and religion, were still not ready for women to be a part of the religious inner circle of leaders. Yet, at the same time, they dared not speak up again about this concern in front of Jesus after the last talk down from Jesus when Mary Magdalene asked to be a part of Jesus' group and to become a religious leader. Jesus probably knew there was still some lingering concerns with some of the male disciples, but he just couldn't get it out of them with another discussion. Jesus tried to have Mary Magdelene kiss him on the lips in front of all the male disciples just to antagonize those few males to speak up and get it out of their minds about whatever they were concerned about. They didn't. They pretended to accept whatever Jesus was doing. So perhaps this was the reason Jesus would provide a private and extra religious teaching with Mary Magdalene and see how the males react if she has to discuss this extra teaching with them. At the same time, Jesus could not be expected to wait for the males to say something. Hopefully Mary and the other disciples, especially John who was open to the idea of women becoming religious leaders, could convince the more outspoken ones to accept the opposite gender as Jesus had wanted to see it become reality.

So how did this gender issue begin?

It was the day when Jesus had to save a woman from a multitude of “demon possessions” and probably the subsequent poor treatment (or risk of death through stoning) of this woman in the hands of the Pharisees with their strict observance to Jewish laws when handling these so-called demons. We learn the woman was named Mary Magdalene. According to Luke 8:1–2, Mary’s problem was best described by the biblical writer as possessing every conceivable "demon" known to humans at the time:

"And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and showing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with him. And certain women, who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities; Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils."

Mark 16:9 gave support for this claim when it stated:

"Now after he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons."

Whatever these “demons” were, not to mention the obscure technique Jesus had employed at the time to remove the "demons", if one were to accept this at face value and assume the woman had been possessed by supernatural evil spirits, the action performed would be considered a truly astounding feat.

Apart from this scantily brief episode, the Bible is remarkably lacking in detail of what happened immediately after the event. All we know is that Mary did join the group of followers to help with what appeared to be the usual domestic chores as a means of supporting the work of Jesus and his male disciples, and later witnessed his crucifixion and resurrection.

In terms of the "demons" referred to by the writers, some theologians have speculated that perhaps this worst-case scenario suggested for the woman could be evidence of a person suffering from a mental illness or epilepsy. For example, Meera Lester said:

"Mary Magdalene's seven demons, as the Bible describes them, might have been epilepsy or a form of mental illness."

Support for this view can be found in Who Framed Mary Magdalene? by Heidi Schlumpf:

"[T]he mention of seven demons is now believed to mean illness, most likely mental illness."

Or maybe she was genuinely possessed by demons and in need of an exorcism? As Bible scholar Ben Witherington III wrote:

"What, then, had happened to Miriam [Mary] of Magdala when Jesus came into her life? Sometimes modern people have assumed that exorcism texts are simply about people who have mental illnesses or epilepsy. While that is true in some cases, there is also credible testimony across many cultures about the reality of evil spirits, and the practice of exorcism over many centuries, including our own."

Either way, the ability of Jesus to cure Mary of demons, mental illness, or epilepsy would be considered a truly bona fide miracle even by 21st century standards. Or, Could there be an alternative and more prosaic explanation to explain what happened to the woman? Because if this explanation could be found, it is possible that Mary could have been an ordinary young woman who was seriously misguided by her actions.

Peter Binsfield gave some clarification on this suggestion when he said that "demons" could represent nothing more than misbehaviors described by others as sinful. According to his understanding, demons are essentially deadly sins, or specific actions and behaviors that encourage the person to commit them repeatedly because of the short-term benefits they bring to oneself (but not necessarily to others), making it easier to commit the sins again and again. Each time the sins are committed, they become habits that clamp the person like a vice into a specific behavioral rut and so make it difficult to break the habit. If the sins persist in the person, it is likely such behavior will cause significant harm to others, as well as oneself, given enough time and people knowing about it.

In 1589, Binsfield personified each deadly sin (right) with the name of a demon (left), as follows:

Deadly Sins

Lucifer Pride (vanity)
Mammon Greed (avarice)
Beezebub Gluttony (over-indulgence)
Belphegor Sloth (laziness)
Leviathan Envy (jealously)
Aamon Wrath (anger)
Admodeus Lust (uncontrolled desire)

To better appreciate how these deadly sins may have played out in the life of Mary Magdalene, let us imagine her early life as having a relatively rich and extravagant lifestyle because of family inheritance, and/or perhaps she married a wealthy husband. Given that Mary allegedly possessed all the "demons", including one where she took excessive pride in her appearance, also known as vanity (Demon 1), it is likely the wealth she had received was already there before she got married. Let us assume this is the case. Now, her good looks and ability to maintain those looks with minimal effort may have seen her marry a reasonably wealthy husband at a relatively young age. In either case, the luxurious lifestyle she attained from her family and perhaps more so with her husband could have made her greedy (Demon 2) and/or gluttonous (Demon 3). She wasn't described as fat or anything. Rather a fairly pretty woman and able to keep up with the long walks with Jesus and his entourage as we later learn. So this gluttonous behaviour must be in relation to something else. Nonetheless, she may still be envious (Demon 4) of those who still had certain things she could not possess or obtain, at least not immediately. Later, when she did acquire or possess certain things, she could have become slothful (Demon 5). As for the husband, who may have been abusive and neglectful to the woman and probably committed his own sins behind Mary’s back, he may be tempted to cheat on his wife, which might make the woman feel jealous and wrathful (Demon 6). As English poet and playwright William Congreve said in The Mourning Bride, “Hell hath no fury as a woman scorned”. Otherwise, the risk of committing the sinful act of murder by the woman would have to be considered extremely high under the circumstances (surprisingly not one of the “deadly sins”). However, if not, the woman could choose to get back at the cheating husband as a form of revenge by doing the same with another man, and perhaps another, and then it would not be long before she would eventually experience the deadly sin of lust (Demon 7) herself. Or perhaps the husband was not rich and he gained access to her inheritance on marrying here and later ran off with everything she had for another woman or kept the wealth to himself? Either way, upon reaching this low point in her life, she would have pretty much acquired the full gamut of deadly sins to her name.

If what has been said so far is considered highly conjectural to some readers, we only need to look at examples of deadly sins played out regularly in a number of American television drama series, such as Desperate Housewives and Dallas, to get an idea how plausible this is. Need another example? Have a read of the article by Louis Sullivan titled The Seven Deadly Sins of The Great Gatsby published on May 14, 2013. This has plenty of situations where the seven deadly sins are played out in remarkable detail. And no, people do not have to be suffering from epilepsy or mental illness to acquire these “demons”.

Sure, one could argue the possibility that this woman had every right to divorce her husband and take her fortune elsewhere if the above scenario had been a reality. However, it is important to remember not to presume that 21st century Western norms can be applied to a situation in the Middle East around 2,000 years ago. It is quite possible that Mary could have lost everything. Perhaps the husband stole everything and ran off with another woman. Or if there had been a divorce, such action would be seen in a negative light with the potential to lose everything from the relationship, including financial support, and her family might have quickly disowned her to protect their own reputation &151; or perhaps her parents had already died and there was no other family member to give her support. It would explain why she was on her own when Jesus came to town. No family members, not even her husband, were there to put in a few good words about her or help her out in other areas. Why was she on her own?

In that time, a woman on her own would face a particularly harsh existence unless there was someone to support her. A supportive family or husband would be helpful. Unfortunately for Mary, something must have pushed her to this lonely existence. Yet her looks would not suggest she was always alone. But something was keeping her in a state of constant sinful behaviour. Perhaps she was trying to survive. If this was a case of her losing much of her inheritance or wealth from her husband, it would be necessary for a woman on her own to find a way to survive, even if what remained in her life was a lingering bad reputation in the town given the number of sins she had committed, and probably continued to commit.

For a woman with limited education and/or opportunities to work and earn a living in an area that would be considered appropriate and acceptable to society, the options available to her would have been seriously diminished. The one thing that Mary did seem to have going for her was her good looks, and her apparently long hair. Combined with the fact that she apparently allowed her hair to flow freely and come down to nearly her waist in the company of other men, it is quite feasible that she may have received some money and food from men who were prepared to take advantage of her situation and attractive appearance by benefiting from her “personal services”.

It should be noted that this is not definitive proof that Mary was a prostitute. There is no clear evidence anywhere in the Bible to support this view. The only tantalizing clues we have to suggest this possibility are her long dark hair, her decision to leave it uncovered and hanging long in front of other men, and the fact that she allegedly committed every form of sin under the sun according to Luke 8:1-3. Since lust is definitely among the list of known deadly sins, it strongly suggests that she must have at some point either committed adultery, or she was a prostitute. The only complicating factor in all of this is the fact that in those days prostitution and adultery were seen as one and the same thing. Therefore, we can’t tell if she had been married or not. All we know is that to have any sense of lust for someone (i.e., to have sex), Mary probably did seek another man (or more likely a number of men). The question is, was it a means of survival? Or was she trying to get back at her husband for being neglectful to her during marriage? This part is unclear. What we do know is that the sinful act of lust was seen by men at the time as a form of prostitution. Again, we cannot say with absolute certainty that Mary was a prostitute even by the standards known two millennia ago. Her early life is still not fully known.

On the other hand, there is evidence that Jesus did have a soft spot for prostitutes. According to Matthew 21:31, Jesus was believed to have said:

"Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you."

If Mary had been a prostitute, Jesus certainly went out of his way to help her when she needed it.

For an example of just how serious adultery (or prostitution) can be, we see a similar situation with another woman accused of adultery in John 7:53 – 8:11:

Then they all went home, but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.

At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, 'Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?' They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, 'Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.' Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, 'Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?'

'No one, sir,' she said.

'Then neither do I condemn you,' Jesus declared. 'Go now and leave your life of sin.' "

Now, even after Jesus successfully saved Mary Magdelene from what we presume was a sinful life, gave her a second chance to live a life free of sin, and listened to her request to join his group and learn his teachings, he later heard the attitude of one male disciple, a former Jew, talking in a manner that undermined the importance of women in the group and, by implications, throughout the rest of society. It was an attitude that effectively summed up the prevalent view of most men, if not all Jews, in this part of the world that women were second-class citizens or people who could never be as good as any man when it came to understanding the religious knowledge of the day, let alone become a respected religious leader of any repute and one that was capable of making reasonable decisions on a logical basis.

The statement from the male disciple can be seen in the Gnostic gospels, the ones not published in the current book Christians call the Bible. We see this in the Gospel of Thomas where a reference is made to a woman named “Mary”. In another Gnostic gospel, we learn who this woman was at a stage when she was already the closest disciple to Jesus and with the knowledge to rationally discuss religious matters and lead a group. We know it is Mary Magdalene. At any rate, the view expressed by one male disciple about her can be seen in the following statement:

Simon Peter said to him [Jesus]: 'Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.'

Notice the particularly strong view of a male disciple against one woman. Clearly he should have known better, especially if he had been taught the principle of love from his teacher and understood the concept of God at its very essence. Remember, there should be no discrimination, right? And God is meant to have both masculine and feminine qualities. Therefore, it is important to treat both men and women equally with respect and the same opportunities to achieve whatever goal they wish to attain. If a woman thinks she can become an effective religious leader, then so be it. Let her be trained to become one. You must treat women equally and with love as you would for anyone else. Surely, such a statement would have certainly required Jesus to respond and counteract in some way. And, if the gospel can be relied upon, he did exactly that as revealed in the full quote:

Simon Peter said to him: 'Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life.'

Jesus said: 'I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.'

However, he did not stop there. The next radical decision by Jesus to help reinforce his balanced view of God and the genders on the men in his group was to also allow a number of other women to not only follow him while providing general assistance in domestic duties and purchasing needy items for Jesus and his disciples, but also to let a number of them willing to listen to his teachings to become his disciples. Among these women privileged to receive religious teachings from him were Joanna, the wife of Herod’s steward Chuza, and Susanna. As Biblical scholar Renita Weems stated in her book Just a Sister Away:

"...Joanna, Susanna and other female traveling evangelists made up the band of female workers who surrendered and sacrificed everything to follow Jesus....Between teaching, they did the cooking; beyond recruiting, they did the mending; in excess of donating their funds, they donated their time.

To his ministry, they had given everything they had: their gifts, talents, time, money...their very substance. Anything to keep his dream going. In short, the women had ministered to Jesus out of the abundance of their hearts."

To teach women religious knowledge was an immensely brave move in those times. As one commentator mentioned in David E. Garland’s Luke-Acts:

"It was unusual for a woman in first-century Judaism to be accepted by a teacher as a disciple."

In fact, it was more than unusual; Jewish men would simply not allow women to learn from a religious teacher. Even the mere association (whether for a casual chat or some other reason) with a woman on the street by a Jewish religious leader was considered a serious problem among Jewish men in Jesus’ time, as we can see from John 4:27:

"Now at that very moment his disciples came back. They were shocked because he was speaking with a woman. However, no one said, 'What do you want?' or 'Why are you speaking with her?' "

Notice the adverse reaction of the male disciples on seeing Jesus talking to a woman. More importantly, he was not even teaching her religious knowledge as far as we can tell from the quote itself or anywhere else by John himself or other disciples. It was nothing more than a casual conversation. Unless the woman was a known prostitute in the town, it would seem strange for the male disciples to react this way over a casual chat. Or else, people who become Jewish religious leaders never meet women. Unlikely considering Jesus’ mother Mary would see him on occasions.

Why the negative reaction from the men? Some commentators have reasonably argued that the woman was a Samaritan and this group of people and the Jews had a certain level of animosity that had not been quelled for a long time. Even so, the quote makes no mention of the woman’s ethnic origins. The focus was on a woman (and, by implications, other women) per se. Specifically, either the talking was of concern, or the passing of religious knowledge to women is the major issue. If there was a passing of religious knowledge, we know this was forbidden under Jewish law. For example, Rabbi Eliezer ben Hurcanus (c. 45–117 CE), who lived around the time of Jesus, was famous for saying:

"Instructing a woman in the Law is like teaching her blasphemy. Let the Law be burned rather than entrusted to a woman."

As the quote in John 4:27 evidently shows, there is no evidence of Jesus teaching the woman any religious knowledge during the chat. In fact, the Bible is unable to tell us the difference between a casual chat and the passing of religious knowledge to a woman on the street. Therefore, either the mere association of a woman with a religious leader, the act of a woman talking to the leader in public in those days, or something about the nature of this woman, was what caused considerable angst among the male disciples. Whatever the concern was, Jesus was already prepared to overturn yet another long-held tradition in Jewish law when it came to religious leaders freely intermingling and conversing with female strangers. And that was just the start. Now Jesus went further to permit women in his group to listen to his religious teachings. A truly radical move for any Jewish religious leader.

Even more radical, as the Gnostic gospels have indicated, Jesus had chosen one woman as his closest disciple, providing numerous private teachings, including further religious ideas not mentioned to the male disciples. Sure the rock the boat of any Jewish religious leader. Furthermore, when the time came for Jesus to relinquish his position as leader of the group, it would appear that he wanted this woman to be his successor together with John as her second-in-command to lead the entire group of men and women of newly appointed apostles in spreading the Good News to the world. That woman was Mary Magdalene.

Eventually Jesus ceremoniously turned the disciples into apostles and thought that they were ready to pass on the knowledge to others, and later his opportunity to depart from the Earth in a spectacular fashion would arrive and allow his apostles to watch on, including Mary Magdalene herself.

Unfortunately, through all the grief in losing their leader, some of the male apostles remained uncomfortable about having a woman as part of the religious discussions.

Not all males were like this. For example, John, a gentle and quiet man (seen as a simpleton but with a strong physique through his fishing days with his brother, a kind of gentle giant) was open to the idea of having women as part of the group and religious discussions. Not the most eloquent speaker compared to the more "outspoken and distrusting of women" alpha males who had better communication skills. Yet somehow Jesus made Mary Magdalene and John the two principle leaders of the new religion for other apostles to rely on for advice if need be. How can this be possible? Well, it happened. The two least likely individuals to become religious leaders above everyone else had now become the "top dogs" in the new religion, quite possibly because they were completely open and willing to learn, whereas the other outspoken males remained deliberately quiet when Jesus was around. And Jesus knew it at the time.

Well, some of the men wanted to know how much extra attention Jesus had given to Mary Magdaleine. As the Gnostic text revealed, a moment came when one of the males decided to speak up and perform a test of his own. He asked Mary to explain whether she received any extra teachings from Jesus. Mary, in being honest, had to acknowledge that she did. When asked what this was about, Mary agreed to pass on the extra knowledge. But despite her honesty, some males were not prepared to forgive her (and, thus the Teacher). Actually, it had infuriated at least a couple of the male apostles. It is unclear at this point whether other secrets were revealed by Mary to make the males feel even more angry. What we know from the remaining Gnostic texts that remains is that a number of the male apostles decided to go their own separate ways, but made it clear that they did not want the help of Mary for any aspect of the work the males were doing.

Not all males agreed. John was still supportive of Mary. But he was seen as a simpleton with limited writing skills and could not formulate an argument to convince his fellow male apostles to accept the woman and any other female disciples in the "Christian male club".

Whatever happened next, it would appear that Mary, together with the second Mary who was the mother of Jesus walked away together into obscurity, perhaps taking final residence somewhere in Europe to live a frugal life until their deaths.

As for the remaining male apostles, some spread far and wide, while a couple went to Rome and another to Jerusalem. Attempts were made by an apostle (Peter) in Jerusalem to convince Jewish priests to at least allow the Christians to join the Jewish temple to present their teachings from the young man, with mixed success. Jewish priests were doing all they can to stop this as they continued to maintain the old testament traditions and the type of God presented in the old scriptures. But there was one important success made with other authorities in Jerusalem to permit the Christian religion to flourish side-by-side with the Jewish religion known as Judaism, much to the dismay of the Jewish priests.

Another apostle went to Rome to carry the message and teach open-minded Romans to consider the ideas from Jesus. A small following grew, but it wasn't growing fast enough. Also the Roman authorities were still not keen to have Christians in the city. At some point, the apostle was discovered and sent to prison for some time in an attempt to minimise his influence among the Romans, probably at the request of some Jewish religious leaders having a temple of their own in the city. Eventually it required another apostle, this time one of the men who was outspoken against women in the Christian religious leadership positions and a more effective communicator to arrive in Rome and quietly recruit more men to join the religion.

It would be a couple of centuries before the time was ripe for Christianity to grow and flourish properly and openly without persecution in Rome. It would require the old leaders in Rome to be ousted in favour of a new Christian-friendly leader to control the city.

Before this happened, at least one other open-minded male apostle did allow women to partake in the new religion and the rigours of religious discussions, as well as let them try out some leadership roles. What stopped the religion from properly expanding was the male-dominated nature of much of the known world in Europe, the Middle East and in Africa. Even in Asia, the males were seen as at the top of the gender hierarchy. Until this hierarchy is broken and men can learn to see the gender equality and understand woman can play an important role in religion, it would be a very long time before anyone can even consider looking at the gender debate in Christianity and whether woman can be ordained as priests. And even then, the debate rages on to this day because of certain "traditions" acquired from the old Jewish religion known as Judaism. While the Old Testament forms a part of the Bible, men holding positions of power in the Church would retain this Jewish tradition of keeping women out of the religious order.

As a result of the male-dominated nature of human society, a strong male with the right leadership qualities and strong communication skills was required to push through the religion to other males. This was the forte and priority for Peter (and one of the earliest and most outspoken apostles against Mary Magdaleine becoming a disciple and student of the religious teaching). It was Peter who took over the reigns of converting enough Christians in Rome. The ideas slowly rubbed off on enough males. But the real moment came when a new Christian-friendly Roman leader took the reigns of power in the city. From then on, the Christian males in their lofty positions high up in the hierarchy were able to establish the Church in Rome while maintaining the old traditions that only males should be in a position of power within the Vatican and not women.

With all decision-making processes centralised in Rome, the Christian teachings spread throughout most parts of Europe. Despite Jewish priests refusing to accept Jesus as someone with a connection to God, the religion continued to spread, reaching almost all corners of the world.

This was also a time when a new calendar system was established to mark the arrival of Jesus as year 0 and enough nations have come to accept this change.

Finally, the male leaders of the Church with their newfound powers in Europe made deliberate efforts to select their preferred gospels and removed anything that could be considered by them to be a little too controversial in their eyes (or potentially undermine certain "traditions" that the males had always wanted to uphold, such as the idea that only males could learn, teach, and discuss religious matters within the Church in Rome). Thus the close relationship between Mary Magdalene and Jesus had to be removed. As we are told in the Gnostic texts (the gospels and additional writings rejected by the Church), the reason for this close relationship was presumably because Jesus had wanted to show to his male disciples how any woman can "think like a male" and partake in any intellectual rigour of religious discussions once he trained her in the right way. Also, anything to suggest that Jesus was just another man (since Jesus was kissing Mary Magdalene on her lips in front of the male disciples, either as a test or to reveal a more intimate bonding between the two), despite his exceptional knowledge of the principle of love, would be almost blotted out of history. Somehow it was felt Jesus' association with a woman was not in keeping with what they thought was a holy man having a connection to God. Jesus had to be pure and not seen as if he may have been tempted under the Jewish law by a woman or his religious ideas tainted by a woman. Even though Jesus said that he felt anyone could learn and apply his knowledge in order to do greater things than he did (after teaching his listeners to think for themselves with the help of his parables and stories), the male Church leaders preferred to make Jesus a holier man than any human could ever achieve, thereby elevating him to close to God status, if not God himself in the flesh and so perpetuating the misinterpretations of the concept of God. No written gospels from Mary Magdelaine would ever enter the minds of the religious male leaders. With the preferred gospels firmly at hand and a new vision set for Jesus, a new unified religious text was created. It combined the Jewish Old Testament views (thereby acknowledging those male apostles who could not let go of the Jewish traditions and religious knowledge) of the previous authoritarian God with the New Testament teachings of Jesus showing the more loving and compassionate side of God. The name given to this book is the Bible.

As a result of this deliberate and careful selection, it helped the Church in Rome to justify and cement its position and claims to maintain its (Jewish) tradition as a male-dominated religion, extending right throughout all leadership positions, including the Pope.

Yet, irrespective of how these males think, the reality is, women have always had an equal footing in the new religion as Jesus had wanted it and expected to be seen, and the males running it should have transformed themselves to become more balanced and inclusive of women. It is just that a few Jewish men still could not handle the fact that women can do the work of a religious leader just as well as any of them.

But to make it worse, at a time when people were experiencing hardships and poverty in Europe, Christian males in positions of power within the Church did not want to lose their position and all the luxuries and other comforts men could receive by dominating the Church and forcing others to support it.

Can we rely on the gospels in the Bible to provide some useful historical information? Here is the view of Father Dwight Longenecker, a Pastor from Greenville, South Carolina, on this aspect:

"The gospels are not factual news reports....They are not typical biography or the work of a professional historian. Neither are the gospels academic historical documents which are cross referenced with multiple documentary, archaeological and anecdotal evidence. The gospels are...recorded accounts of personal experiences of multiple individuals from within a faith community. They are the written record of the stories told and sermons preached by the immediate followers of Jesus Christ about his life, teaching and death.

Most scholars conclude that the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) were composed before the death of St Peter and St Paul in the year 65AD, and that the gospel of John was composed around the year 90AD. Some scholars say the Gospel of John is the first gospel written — in the 50s — just twenty years after the death of Christ (JAT Robinson).

Who wrote the gospels Matthew is the only one of the three synoptic gospels authored by one of the Apostles himself. John is also written by an apostle. Mark was a disciple of Paul and Peter, and the early traditions say that he recorded Peter's sermons and accounts of the life of Christ. Luke was also a companion of Paul and the early traditions are that he is the doctor who traveled with Paul, and that Luke also knew the Virgin Mary....

We can therefore conclude with the majority of scholars that Mark's gospel was indeed written by John Mark the companion of Peter, and Luke's gospel was written by Luke, the companion of Paul. Their sources, therefore, were Peter and Paul — both eyewitnesses to the events portrayed in the gospel. Furthermore, these gospels were written just thirty years after the events described.

The fact that the gospels were records of sermons to the early church community strengthens the case for historical reliability because the community itself would exercise a form of check and balance with the historical record....They are not the creation of any one individual, but the record of the stories and accounts and memories from many individuals. This multiplicity of sources adds an astounding level of veracity to the gospels since those many different sources check and balance and correct one another....

In addition to this we must consider the Jewish context of the early church. A strict memorization of the Scriptures is part of the Jewish tradition. Jewish boys even today for their Bar Mitzvah have to memorize parts of the Scripture and are checked for it word by word. In the first century, with the scarcity of manuscripts, boys were taught to memorize the entire Old Testament, and to recite the accounts of the history of their people word for word....The stories of Jesus Christ were told and re-told within this Jewish context by Jews who were the first Christians.

Critics of the historicity of the gospels like to talk in vague terms of "the mythological elements" which crept into the gospel account. However, no one actually quotes chapter and verse. That is because there are no "mythological elements." Those who talk about mythological elements are clearly ignorant not only of the gospels themselves, but of what mythology actually consists of. What they usually mean by 'mythological elements' is the supernatural. The gospels do indeed contain supernatural elements, but these supernatural experiences — angels appearing to people or miracles happening — are recounted as real events that were recorded because they were real events and therefore all the more astonishing. The supernatural elements presuppose belief in a supernatural dimension....

When confronted with the accounts of the miraculous we have to ask ourselves why anyone would fabricate a tale which is so obviously incredible. Why would twelve other men corroborate the tale if it had not happened? The only possible motivation for fabricating a story would be that more people would join their religion. But that religion didn't do anything for them. It did not bring them fame or fortune or power or glory. On the contrary, it only brought them ridicule, persecution, torture, hardship and eventually death.

Surely a person who was fabricating tales — or even allowing them to be exaggerated — would not have the moral fortitude to then die an agonizing death for those lies. The record of supernatural events does not negate, therefore, the historical claims of a document....

Critics point to the discrepancies of detail between the gospel accounts. Here a character is missing, there an incident happened a bit differently - here there is confusion about who a character is related to. Here the chronology di ers between one account and another. This is put forward as a criticism of the historicity of the accounts, but when this is examined more thoughtfully it actually proves the authenticity of the gospels. Wouldn't it be much more suspicious if there were four di erent accounts of the same events and they matched perfectly? Then we would surely conclude that there was a work of fabrication and serious editing going on. Instead we find four different accounts which essentially agree, but which differ in detail. This is exactly what you would expect from four different perspectives from four different witnesses of the same event....

It is true that the gospels do not measure up to the standards of modern critical historical practice. But they do not purport to be modern, scientifically verifiable documents. They are the records of real events experienced by real people."


At around 65 A.D., Jewish historian Josephus wrote a UFO account. It was spectacular enough to warrant a recording on papyrus for future generations to read. As the sighting occurred over Judea and, therefore, over a wide enough area, enough people were able to verbally testify to its veracity at the time. As Josephus wrote, based on the best available modern translation into English:

"On the 21st of the month Artemisium, there appeared a miraculous phenomenon, passing belief. Indeed, what I am about to relate would, I imagine, have been deemed a fable, were it not for the narratives of eyewitnesses and the subsequent calamities which deserved to be so signalized. For, before sunset throughout all parts of the country, chariots were seen in the air and armed battalions hurtling through the clouds and encompassing the cities."

For another interpretation of this last sentence:

"...chariots and troops of soldiers in their armour… running about among the clouds, and surrounding the cities.


The last known major eruption of New Zealand's Taupo caldera on the northern island, and the most violent in the last 5,000 years. Taupo began erupting 300,000 years ago and ever since there would be a major eruption arriving in a cyclic manner roughly every 1,000 to 3,000 years. Today, the caldera is partly filled with a large body of freshwater called Lake Taupo.


Around the year 426 A.D., a young teenager living in a rich English family was taken away by pirates to be sold as a slave among a group of poorer Pagan people of Ireland. Many years of hardship through hunger, cold, rain and loneliness in a foreign country taught him to rely more strongly on his Christian faith for a sense of stability in a new world that seemed to be lacking the necessary understanding of love.

One day, as he tended to the sheep of his captors, he realised how the one true God in the things he observed in nature was essentially sustaining him and keeping him alive (i.e., find foods that were keeping him alive, the sunshine for warmth, the fresh water satisfying his thirst, etc.) despite all the suffering. Then he heard a voice in his head suggesting that he can return home in a ship if he followed his faith.

Possibly he ate a magic mushroom by accident?

After 6 long years being held against his will in a foreign land, his creative and defiant spirit finally took over. He chose to follow the voice he heard in his head to see where it would lead him. The young man decided to make his daring escape on foot across Ireland despite the considerable risk to his life if he was captured, relying simply on the water and food of the land for nourishment and his intelligence and creativity to avoid detection.

Miraculously he managed to reach the Eastern coast of Ireland where he found someone who was prepared to take him back to England after observing how this strange man was able to pray like a Christian. Clearly this was no ordinary Irishman.

On his return to England, he was welcomed with open arms by his family and the people of his own township. Soon everyone learned of the man's incredible story of capture, living in Ireland, and how he escaped the land. It was considered at the time the first person to ever do so as a slave.

It wasn't long before his remarkable story and strong Christian faith would see English priests sufficiently impressed to allow the young man to become a priest himself and later a bishop. Yet his life's work had only just began.

The voice of God seemed to call him again saying the people of Ireland needed him. He may have felt a little reluctant to follow this voice again. Understandable considering the hardship he went through. Yet somehow he must have realised the people of Ireland were missing something in their lives. The multiple gods in this ancient and brutal Pagan society and not seeing the power of love was not helping the people to see a better way of living.

It took a while and some thinking, but eventually the lack of love and./or direction in a nation yearning to be loved and/or led in the right direction eventually brought the man back to Ireland.

Over the next few years he convinced an incredible number of Irish people to follow the one true loving God by using a simple language spoken in the native tongue of Ireland, which he had learned during his time as a slave. The ideas of God and love and in solving many social problems in an alternative way helped the people to understand life more clearly and to reach for yet another higher level of existence through the Christian faith.

In return for this knowledge, the people of Ireland gave him the love and the things he needed to survive and live peacefully.

Back in England the Christian king and some of the bishops were getting jealous of the man's increasing fame and success. They wanted to pick on his weaknesses in a vain attempt to see him as a sinner. The man had to return to England to answer charges that he had sinned unto God.

The man tried to convince his fellow Christians in England that what he did for the people of Ireland was right. For example, he did not speak Latin to the people of Ireland and his methods were somewhat unorthodox. Yet this should not have made a difference when speaking the language of love. Unfortunately the behaviour of his colleague priests and bishopsweren't in keeping with the Christian faith and the true principle of love as he understood it. The man felt disillusioned by the Christian leaders in England. In the end, he realised that he could no longer stay in a country that forgot so easily the true principle of love and instead wanted to maintain traditions so rigorously. The Christian faith in England was preoccupied with following too many specific rules from the head of the Church in Rome as if this is the only way to do things. The place he once called home was forever abandoned. He returned to Ireland where he felt the people could benefit more from his teachings than he could ever achieve from his so-called Christians in England. He wrote letters explaining his strong convictions, how God spoke to him, and gave a clear account of his entire life story in vivid detail.

His courage and persistence in writing eventually saw him left alone by the religious authorities in England. Perhaps the man felt abandoned in Ireland by the English religious authorities. Yet the Irish people made him feel at home as he continued to help them until his death.

The man's incredible strength, sacrifice, determination to survive, conviction and support for his own understanding of the principle of love as taught by the original religious leader in the Bible, appreciating the simple life, realising how nature was supporting him as God would, to allow his mind and body to acutely be sensitive to his natural environment, to think about problems and be an excellent problem solver, and his tremendous love for the Irish people, even those who the English Christians thought could never be helped, had turned him into a Saint.

Today the Irish people remember the man as St Patrick, which is celebrated on 17 March every year.


A group of Polynesians known as the Rapanui sailed east to reach a large uninhabited island in the South Pacific. A place of remarkable beauty, the island had a seemingly unlimited supply of trees and fresh water, and to a certain extent this was the kind of thinking a number of the first settlers had on arriving at this untouched tropical wilderness. Not knowing how the fresh water was maintained and the importance of the trees in sustaining the water cycle and other natural resources, the new inhabitants were poised to create an imbalance in the natural ecology with a decision to cut down trees to build homes and boats. The eventual disaster would not happen straightaway. It would take time. Time for humans to go about using up the natural resources over the next couple of centuries.

The place where this happened is called Easter Island.

As the people settled on the island, they did not realise the amount of fresh water was highly dependent on the availability of trees to condense the moist air on the surface of the leaves. To further enhance the condensation effect, the island's natural landscape helped the moist air to rise and form water droplets called clouds or fog over mountain tops. The droplets on leaves enlarged and would fall to the ground at night. Trees provide a secondary benefit of preventing the ground water from evaporating. Enough water on the ground ensures not all the moisture is absorbed in the soil or lost through evaporation. Excess water flows downhill and later combine to create small streams. They then collect in ponds and small lakes. Eventually they overflow, and the water continues to flow downhill until it reaches the oceans. Having extra moisture on the island to create adequate clouds and enough rainfall or foggy conditions to help maintain the whole natural cyclic system was the key to why the island remained so lushes and self-sustaining.

In terms of the number of trees, scientists have estimated that there were a healthy 20 million in total, comprising mostly of palm trees. In the summer time, rain clouds could be seen forming regularly over the island thanks to the shape of the land to raise its moist air to a suitable height, and its abundance of trees to condense the moisture into droplets of water and prevent evaporation. While the trees remained, everything looked to be in plentiful supply to the new settlers. Together with the abundant supply of fish in the oceans acquired by the fishermen in boats made from the trees on the island, it seemed the place was just like back home in Polynesia.

Then, some time around 1,100AD, the number of trees diminished significantly, and the ability to gather enough food from the oceans or grow food on land was getting harder. Freshwater supplies were also diminishing rapidly for some inexplicable reason to the inhabitants. Perhaps the population was getting too large. Or was there greed and power in the minds of a handful of men? Or did some men blame it on the gods for being unhappy about something? Whatever the reason for this situation, the population split into several different tribes, each with a different approach to solving the problems on the island. Unfortunately the one causing all the problems still remained and had a way to stay in power on the island longer than the other tribes. It is the people of this successful tribe, mostly men and lead by a man, who maintained the view that "she will be right, mate!" and to continue using up the resources while doing things to appease the gods. Just give it enough time and the rains will return if we can keep the gods happy.

This kind of thinking of the males is the real problem. One of the tribes thought the remaining resources could still be plundered and the gods will grow back the trees and provide everything the people needed to survive. As a result, that tribe probably used more of its fair share of the resources to stay strong and win the equivalent of the annual Birdman competition to see which tribe would lead all the other tribes and tell them what should be done on the island. The benefits of a comfortable life after acquiring the resources were too much. The unsustainable tribe wanted to win the competition more often to maintain the status quo of unlimited resources. No doubt the other tribes on the island were not happy even if more and more people could see the island's natural forest was being decimated from human activity and the winning tribe would not instigate some from of adequate recycling of the resources.

As the food supplies went down and the number of trees diminished, a religion was formed. The leaders of this stronger tribe directed other tribes to build statues to keep the gods happy on the assumption that they would provide an abundance of food for the following year. This approach was repeated for many years.

Not everyone in the other tribes agreed with this approach. Some people believed it was better to plant new palm trees and other plants. Unfortunately, it takes time to grow the trees.

One further complication to the life of the people on Easter Island was the presence of seasons. In the summer time, the island felt very much like one of the Polynesian islands — moist and hot. In the winter time, temperatures would drop far more than expected. The island's geographical location being further south of the equator would create this seasonal change in climate and temperature. Combined with the need for wood to build boats for fishing, burning palm trees for warmth would have placed a further strain on the island's natural forest.

There were attempts by people in the other tribes to reverse the trend in the tree populations. New trees were being planted, but to reach a reasonable size would take time.

Time was not on the side of the people living on the island. Before the last big tree was cut down, some of the people from the opposing tribes thought the idea of carving out statues from the volcanic rock was a waste of time. Several large boats were constructed and some of the people went onto the high seas to escape the insanity. Some travelled further east until they reached South America. Others made the decision to go west following the winds to return to the other Polynesian islands.

A time came when the last tree was cut down. This was a dangerous time. No more trees meant no more replacement canoes or even to keep warm in the winter. And no canoes quickly saw a growing number of people experiencing regular malnutrition. Only enough crops growing on the land was just sustaining a smaller population. Something had to change.

Soon a decision was made to stop building the great Easter Island statues. The religious aims of certain fixated leaders from this unsustainable tribe would collapse. It was likely that the leaders who supported the religious views were rounded up and burned in a ditch.

Afterwards, food became carefully rationed.

The population grew slightly as the people adapted to a different way of life and method of growing food.

Then in the 18th century, visits from Dutch and South American sailors added further pressure to the Rapanui people. A fight broke out with the Dutch in 1722 in which 12 Rapanui men died, mainly because it was thought the foreign visitors would impact on the resources of the island (and understandable thought considering what the inhabitants had went through). Eventually a truce was made once the people of the island understood the purpose of the visit.

Then the Spanish sailors arrived 48 years later. They brought with them new diseases such as chicken pox. Up to 1,500 of the islanders were also brought to South America. When a number of them returned, many had sexually transmitted diseases that soon wiped out many of the remaining inhabitants on the island.

Despite all these factors affecting the survival of the people in various ways, approximately 100 of the original inhabitants have survived. Today the island has a stable and thriving population, only because tourism and the availability of ships to bring supplies to the island has made sure the original inhabitants can survive. Without this help, it is likely the last of the inhabitants would have died out in the early 20th century, leaving behind only a handful of birds and insects finding a tiny niche in this barren part of the world.

Will the people of Western society in the 21st century go in the same way as the people of Easter Island? Or will we be forced to adapt to a world without trees and rely on tourism to somehow keep the economic system ticking over? Or will there have to be a new world order, and one that is more closely aligned to the re-building and protection of our natural environment?


Not all UFOs in Earth's skies have to be unnatural or inexplicable. Some can have a logical and natural explanation. A good example of this is the bright light in the sky over China on 22 July 1054. Today, astronomers can confidently explain that this was due to a massive supernova explosion, the remnants of which can be seen in photographs taken of the Crab Nebula.


The time of the Aztecs would reign supreme in central Mexico.

It began around 1150 AD when as many as 175,000 people came into the Valley of Mexico — a fertile area containing a plentiful supply of water and rich fertile lands. Any wars that may have existed between feuding tribal groups prior to this time — probably over food and territory — had suddenly vanished as if by agreement, or the realisation that in a land filled with abundance there was no need to fight each other. The kind of thing old prophets in the Middle East keep telling us is the key to ending wars and guaranteeing human survival while living in the kingdom of God (or place of plentiful and recycling everything). Do we need more examples?

A number of years went by. People from the surrounding countryside saw how well the settlers in the valley were doing, so they thought to do the same. Slowly the population levels increased in the area.

As more people came to the area, some of the original people who owned the fertile land decided it would be better to lease it to others to do the work of growing food and so free up the land owners time to do other things, which is mainly to enjoy the luxuries to come from people working in this society, as well as exercise powers in making decisions and telling others what to do (does this remind you of any modern civilisation in the 21st centuiry?).

As the population swelled to around 1 million in the late Aztec period of 1350 to 1519 AD, people were placing considerable stress on the environment. By early 1500 AD, all available fertile land and surface water in the valley were virtually exhausted. Why? Because the land was being frivolously and carelessly cleared of the trees, rain washed the valuable nutrients away from the soil making it harder to grow food, the swamp was drained of its waters to create raised fields and places for some of the inhabitants to live, and where the trees were cleared, it exposed the soil to increased evaporation of the water under the hot Sun. Things were not looking good for the people.

As resources dwindled and populations expanded even further, a hierarchical system of powerful Aztec rulers, religious leaders and elite overlords began monopolising power in the city. The early abundance of food and other goods hoarded by the rich and powerful and later leased the land to other people to help make more riches created a separate class of people called the commoners. As a matter of survival, the commoners created their own markets free of state control. People could produce their own goods consisting of growing water-thirsty cotton crops and making cotton textiles, as well as pottery, statuettes and offering other kinds of services.

Yet no matter how much richer the rulers got, or how many people worked the land, the environment wasn't getting any better. The rains became increasingly infrequent and the crops were not as plentiful as they once were. Before long, some diseases started to set in among the crops resulting in a number of commoners struggling to feed themselves and give enough to the rich leaders as payment for the lease of the land.

The rich and powerful with their lack of environmental knowledge and a preference for selfishness in their own needs and wants probably passed laws into Aztec society making it a requirement for commoners to work harder and for longer or pay the upper class more money as well as food as if the leaders thought too many commoners were dole bludgers and were not providing adequate contribution to society to help explain the low resource situation. The truth, however, was that some of the rich and powerful were probably asking too much from the commoners. Those in a position of power could not see why things have changed and the commoners were struggling. They were locked away in their own world of luxury and strange rituals that made them oblivious to the environmental destruction that was taking place all around them, or thought things would return to normal some day. An occasional bit of rain might make the leaders think everything is fine and life must go on. While others, namely the religious leaders of later generations immune to life on the land and thus no understanding of what it means to perform hard work in growing food, had no practical knowledge to give to the commoners and were increasingly resorting to religion for a solution as people sought answers.

So where is this knowledge to protect the environment? Weren't the commoners given practical (or more scientific) knowledge) of how to look after the environment and recycle everything they produced? Unfortunately not. Part of the reason was because the rich and powerful had no knowledge to give to the commoners. They were too self-absorbed in their own lives. But it is also because the rich and powerful were afraid of giving too much knowledge to the commoners. Knowledge is a dangerous thing to have in the wrong hands. It could undermine the power of those who are rich and supposedly leading society along the right path. The other reason could be to do with the way some rich and powerful Aztec rulers and overloads became obsessed with death and their own gods.

Some of the questions that may have filled the minds of the rich and powerful at the time included, What's the purpose of life? Is there a greater meaning to our existence? Is it really to fill one's belly with food that the whole meaning of our existence and the purpose of life and the Universe can be understood? If this is true, why do people still die? Why is death so much a part of this Universe and life cannot escape from it? And why do people continue to suffer?

This fatally flawed obsession consumed the life of the rich and powerful, and also the religious leaders whose job it was to support the elite in finding a solution to this great problem of death and in understanding the environmental disaster taking place. No practical knowledge of how to grow food and look after the environment was provided, only religious knowledge. Religion became the dominant feature of the Aztec's lives. Once the rich and powerful accepted religion as the only solution, the scene was set for the destruction of a great civilisation.

Towards the end of the Aztec empire between 1500 and 1519 AD, the commoners became very poor as they tried desperately to resort to non-food products such as cotton and increasing the production of textiles to sell to whoever could afford to buy it and so help them to pay the elite overlords for the land as well as import any food from towns and villages far away. Soon religious activities increased as a way for the people and the leaders to solve the food shortages. Indeed, the leaders felt that the gods were somehow unhappy about something. To make the gods happy again, something must be given to appease these supernatural beings. A kind of nourishment like we see maintained for those elites in order for the people to be nourished and maintained with an abundance of food.

How did this belief come about? It seems the religious leaders found a way to appease the gods by observing how the dead buried in a plot of land after a period of time and receiving some water can suddenly grow a abundance of vegetation than in an area not containing the dead as if somehow the bodies were helping to restore the land and bring back fertility. Then a decision was made for someone to sacrifice a bit of blood on the ground to see what happens. Surprisingly for the religious leaders, something grew out of the ground. Was this the way to keep the gods happy?

Now a new and dangerous religious idea and precedent was born: why not sacrifice more blood to the Earth as this may somehow nourish the gods, the soil, and ultimately grow more food? As crude as the idea may seem to us today, it does provide a primitive way of understanding why death exists in the Universe and how life suddenly appears in the spot where the blood-letting takes place.

We know without death, life in the Universe would not exist. No one could survive in an infinite population of the living. Death is an inherent part of this Universe in order for life in the Universe to exist and with reasonable comfort (depending on the population levels and how sustainable it is). However, for those who are alive today, it does require the natural recycling systems of the Universe and the diversity of life itself to work in order for balance to be restored. Thus one could create a story to help explain this inherent nature of the Universe by saying death is a way to make God happy and restore balance to the Universe for the rest of life to continue indefinitely.

Unfortunately some religious leaders in Aztec society took the idea too literally and to the extreme. This was desperate times calling for desperate measures to solve the food shortages.

At first some blood letting performed in rituals under these leaders may have coincided with some periods of rain to help reinforce the idea. When the rains stopped again and would not return for a longer period of time, the leaders thought more blood-letting was needed to make the gods (i.e. the environment) happy. Soon many people had to die in brutal sacrifices to help bring a sense of balance in the environment (i.e., appease God, or the gods — well, whoever or whatever is responsible for controlling the production of food and water in the valley).

To further add to the woes of the Aztecs, the constant war between the Aztecs and Tarascan people eventually saw enough weapons smuggled cross the border from Tarascan and into the hands of the commoners through the Aztec market system. The time was ripe for a major revolt.

The tipping point finally came when certain religious leaders were asking too much from the commoners. And too many people from outside the Aztec community were being sacrificed (including babies because of how some religious leaders were developing a psychopathic view of blood and tears of the babies representing the rain in the eyes of the gods). Too much was being destroyed to appease the gods. On top of all this was the fact that the elite in the Aztec civilisation could no longer be paid properly and too many people were beginning to starve for food as society began to descend into chaos.

The rich and powerful must have sensed something terrible was about to happen. They probably tried to protect themselves through its own crude military force. Yet the stupidity continued. Rather than meeting with the people and searching for alternative solutions, the leaders hid themselves in their fortified and luxurious homes. Finally, the massive population of commoners eventually saw through all the religious crap. The decision to bring back balance in their own way started and there was nothing to stop it. What happened next turned out to be brutal and violent to return the favour to the elite people. The loyal soldiers for the elite could not stop it, or more likely they joined with the commoners knowing they had no chance to protect the rich and powerful and they too had to survive. Now the people had the power to change the future. No longer would they continue working for the dysfunctional leaders and support the outrageous religious rituals. The final act was really a bloody end, followed by looting and a great fire consuming all the resources and representations of deities and gods held by the rich and powerful. What could have been a prosperous and peaceful society if it took a balanced and more frugal approach to living and had understood the power of recycling everything including the biggest natural recycler of all — our environment — instead caused the civilisation to take the road to self-destruction.

We can only hope modern human society will take heed of these warning signs before it is too late.


By no later than 1445AD, the last of the big flightless wingless birds were hunted to extinction on the islands of New Zealand by the Maori within a century of human arrival. Known as the Moa, these docile birds stood up to an impressive 3.5 metres in height. Now scientists believe they know why they disappeared. After analysing the growth rings in the stored bones of extinct Moas, scientists discovered the two Moa species may have taken several years to reach reproductive maturity and up to a decade to have a strong enough skeletal frame to defend itself and run away from the humans as well as support their offsprings. Without adequate time to reproduce, humans became the idiots (yet again) in the demise of this bird. Instead of looking at the situation like a giant Kentucky Fried Chicken experience, they could not learn to be sustainable and protect the resources available to them. Blame it on the males of the human species whose egos and demand for food are suddenly inflated every time they kill an animal much bigger than themselves. Such a macho thing to do, isn't it?

Or do as most males do — blame it on the gods! You cannot tell males they are wrong. They will resent you for it.

For an animal having the largest brain in comparison to its body, we are acting more like we have the smallest brain in comparison to our body.


As human language reached a level of sophistication in describing things, some people began to report UFOs as "coloured globes", "fiery lights", "flying shields" and "chariots of fire" to name a few. Where a mysterious column of light appeared below these UFOs or from strange clouds moving around in the sky, it may have been described as a "pillar of fire". In other observations, flying crosses and cylinders were not unheard of.

If an unusual aerial event was seen as significant, humans were likely to draw pictures of what they saw to make a permanent record of it. For example, a woodcut made in celebration of a momentous hour-long event that occurred in the sunny sky over Nuremberg, Germany, on the morning of 14 April 1561, suggested that a number of flying spheres, hollow cylinders with spheres inside, other cylinders without the spheres, as well as flying crosses made their presence known to observers on the ground. Not unheard of observations for UFOs today, as we shall see.

The spheres made their triumphant return at sunrise and sunset on two days in July and again at sunrise on 7 August 1566, in Switzerland, where the following picture was produced.

Woodcut of UFOs observed over the town of Basel in Switzerland.
UFOs over Basel, Switzerland, in 1566.

A student from the Swiss town of Basel reported the sighting in the following way:

"…[M]any large, black globes were seen in the air, moving before the sun at great speed and turning against each other as if fighting. Some of them became red and fiery and afterwards faded and went out."

In both sightings, it would appear the UFOs were engaging in a type of aerial battle as some of the objects collided and faded off as they fell from the sky. Could this be evidence of the early introduction of fireworks into Europe from the Arab world, where such technology had been known since the 12th century? Or were these UFOs something more mysterious?


The first deliberate effort by humans to separate electric charges for the purpose of doing work with it was successfully achieved by humans thanks to the invention of the electrostatic generator. The earliest type was friction-based using a sulphur globe that was rubbed by hand — first discovered in 1663 by Otto von Guericke. The design was improved, with Sir Isaac Newton recommending a glass globe, while his assistant Francis Hauksbee (1660–1713), whom Newton later appointed curator, instrument maker and experimentalist of the Royal Society, used an electrical machine, enabling the rapid rotation of the glass globe against a woollen cloth.

As for realising that negative charges flow toward the positive end forming an electric current, this was first observed in 1781 when Luigi Galvani, professor of anatomy at Bologna University, Italy, saw the effect of electricity on the nerves and muscles inside the legs of a dead frog. It was an accidental discovery. Galvani's assistant just so happened to be playing with an electrostatic machine in the same room as he was dissecting a frog with his steel scalpel. A spark was generated by the machine, which managed to complete a circuit, whereupon Galvani observed the muscles in the frog's legs twitch significantly. As Galvani said:

"…[S]uddenly all the muscles of the frog's limbs were seen to be violently contracted just as though they had been seized with a violent cramp."

In 1800, Alexandro Volta became credited with inventing the battery. It may not have been the world's first battery in the strictest definition, if the Baghdad jars are anything to go by, but it would be the moment when people actually recognised the usefulness of batteries as a means of storing electrical energy.

Electricity would be exploited further following the development of magnets and coils for generating power. The prolific inventor Thomas Edison made the most of this power by redesigning the light bulb in 1879 to ensure a reliable source of light using lower electric currents thanks to an improved vacuum inside the globe.

Of course, the reverse situation of using electrical power to turn magnets and coils also had its benefits too. In particular, it became the basis for creating many modern electric motors for performing work. However, when it came to transport, humans in the 20th and early 21st century took the easier route of using fossil fuels (mainly for the sake of profit) principally to turn wheels and push aerodynamic objects for lift in the air. While this wasted a lot of fuel and has resulted in global warming, in the 21st century, humans would return to the electric motor for vehicles on the ground for essentially the same purpose. In terms of flying machines, the principle of radiation propulsion would be applied. The only additional requirement for human society to become sustainable was to find renewable solutions to generating electrical energy.

It would take a long time before humans finally make the transition to a purely electromagnetic and sustainable society.


We see battles continue throughout history between people of different religions as if some people were trying to prove one's faith (or God) is better than another and thus allegedly closer to the Truth. The classic example is the battle of Vienna on 11 and 12 September 1683.

In this battle, Vienna was besieged by the Ottoman Empire led by a well-respected Turkish warrior and leader named Grand Vizier Merzifonlu Kara Mustafa Pasha. No less than 90,000 and as many as 300,000 men under the rule of Mustafa had amassed on the grounds outside the walls of Vienna. The aim of the Turkish leader was to take back the territory the Ottoman Empire had once occupied for a brief period over what was effectively a long and bloody battle lasting over 300 years between the Christian believers of the Holy Roman Empire living in Europe and those who believed in the Islamic faith, as can be found among the people of Turkey and some parts of Eastern Europe.

The battle ended almost as quickly as the Turkish leader arrived when Mustafa made the fatal decision just before the battle began of not securing a mountain ridge nearby despite one of the leaders of an alliance group recommending this should be done. As a result, an ageing Polish General on the opposing side saw an opportunity to inflict considerable damage and casualties to the large numbers of men that Mustafa had concentrated on the ground. With agreement of all other leaders from various supporting Christian-based European countries, the Polish leader ordered his men to lift a number of heavy cannons into position at the top of the ridge during the night and in the rain. It was a gruelling job. Mud hampered the work considerably.

By the following day and with the canons in position and pointed at the enemy, the battle for Vienna quickly swung around in favour of the Christians thanks to the terrible damage caused by the canons on Mustafa's army. The remaining soldiers on the ground forced into disarray were taken care of by Polish forces and the various other groups forming the European alliances.

It was a humiliating defeat for the Turkish leader. And since Islam does not believe in forgiveness as Christians do, Mustafa had to pay with his life by being strangled by two men with a piece of rope in front of Turkish soldiers as a witness to the rest of the remaining army of what happens when leaders fail to deliver.

Over the next 16 years, European armies largely removed any remaining pockets of the Ottoman forces, thereby ending any dreams of Turkish leaders occupying much of Europe.

But why should a battle of different faiths have to take place at all?

What people don't seem to realise is that the way certain individuals express their faith in a God does not make their God any more important or different from anyone's else's faith in a God. There is only one God. What are we trying to prove by going to war with regards to our faith? All the names we may give to God and the places we may worship (whether it is a Moslem temple or a Christian Church) are what men have created for themselves in order to help them better understand this one God and to get closer to understanding this entity. No single faith that people have created will ever represent the ultimate true faith or religion of God. This is something we must work together and approach. And the only way this can be done is by combining all the faiths into one, showing what is in common in all the knowledge, and so make it easier for everyone to see the same God. It is not about proving whose God is better than whom.

Any battle over people's faith is a waste of time because all you are doing is fighting over the one and same God. Having enemies in such a war is like fighting your own brothers under the principle of love. There is no such thing as an enemy when you have the true God promoting true love. The only reason for having these pointless battles over so-called faiths in a God are based on non-religious reasons. Many leaders often hide their secret agenda behind the veil of religion. Usually this agenda is merely for materialistic gains in terms of acquiring wealth or territory, or love for another person, or a lack of understanding of God by allowing hatred to fester on another person without truly understanding the principle of love. What leaders often forget is that bringing religion into wars is not the true religion of God. The one and true God never teaches us to fight battles against other living creatures. Wars have no place in a true religion. Only love, even right down to our greatest enemies.


The grand 300-year solar cycle lasting up 50 years (as opposed to the standard 11-year cycle) reached the Sun's lowest output of heat and light between 1650 and 1700, leading to particularly long-lasting and severe winters in England and Europe. The coldest was in 1683 when the river Thames froze.

NOTE: Europe and England can experience colder winters than usual during periods of global warming. As the planet heads into this phase in the 21st century, a moment will come when enough ice melts in the Arctic ocean thereby reducing the winds from the north. As a result, the winds from the Arctic do not come down to stop the flow of cold winds from Siberia moving in from the East. As the difference in cold and warm waters becomes non-existent (because there is very little ice in the Arctic and elsewhere), the warm ocean currents from the Caribbean reaching Europe stops flowing as well because of this extra colder water and ice moving down from the Arctic, the cold weather in Europe will be much more severe. On the other hand, during the summer times, temperatures under a global warming environment can rise quickly. Snow and ice across Europe and England will melt and create massive floods in low-lying areas and along major European rivers. The summer will also bring initially more rain than usual followed by intense and very hot days. Soon, the conditions will dry up. For other parts of the world, global warming will see continents experience severe droughts. If the droughts don't occur, it is only because the warm ocean currents are able to add extra humidity in the air and this can reach the coasts to provide extra rainfall. But once the ice in Antarctica and Arctic regions fully melt, these ocean currents are expected to stop flowing. Then the weather will be more constant of an extreme and mostly drier nature over land.


The Industrial Revolution commences in Europe (led by England in 1780) around the late 18th century.

According to the United Nations InterGovernmental Report on Climate Change, global warming increased from the moment human's began burning wood and coal for energy, but quickly accelerated as the demand for wood, oil and coal by businesses in the industrial age increased. As population grew, the demands for businesses to expand and produce more items and services for the people expanded as well. Irrespective of any efficiencies, a growing population increases the energy demands.

High energy demands to run factories and the product themselves in the early stages revealed the highly energy-inefficient nature of the products, the size of the products needed to be produced, and the number of people demanding those products, not to mention how people went about producing those products. The early forms of the products were expensive and this initially reduced the demand and restricted its use to the rich members of society. Later, as the scale of economies reduced the price, more and more people were able to afford the products. Then the energy demands to use certain products naturally increased even further. Even when new energy-efficient products are produced, the sheer size of the growing population will see to it that the energy savings are lost. Until population levels are controlled, there will always be a need to use up energy from wood or coal unless something else can supply the energy.

This is the problem with businesses. It sees no limits (just like the Rapanui people of Easter Island saw no limit on the number of trees). More customers are better, and continuous growth is essential. There is no such thing as a perfectly recyclable product. Well, at least not on the minds of most business people. Unless the packaging can also be eaten, it just doesn't happen. Businesses do not pay the true cost from cradle to grave of what is needed to produce something, recycle it properly, and give time to grow or re-create a new product.

Another thing that also went out the window at this time was the idea of working only so much as needed to survive. Rather than "work to live", the new motto for business people and the expectations of their employees became closer to "live to work" as individuals realised materialism was the key to building untold wealth and business people could become incredibly rich simply by selling as many products as possible to the consumers (and keeping a larger share of the profits while convincing the workers the pay they are getting is better than receiving no wages). Of course, to sell products, someone has to make them. And the more time people spend to make them, the more products there were. This explains why workers in the early days had to work longer hours in poor conditions and age was no limit to who could work for these business people. Today, conditions have improved. Despite the existence of weekends to allow workers to rest, employers today still think in a similar way with demands for overtime work from workers increasing, or else find ways to reduce costs, such as sacking permanent full time staff in favour of younger and more naive workers who think the lower pay is good while working under contract in order to give more power to employers to sack them without giving a reason.

In essence, the principle of love was not high on the agenda for a number of business people (except for their own families, friends and like-minded business people).

From this industrialised society came a predominantly two-party political system in Western democratic nations. Different names might be used to describe these parties. One party (e.g., Liberals in Australia, Republicans in the United States, etc.) focused on the employers and their needs and deregulating the markets while ensuring people work for the employers to help keep the taxes coming in regularly and substantially. The other party (e.g,, Labor in Australia, Democrats in the United States) is focused on protecting the workers and providing essential services for everyone. In the late 20th century and into the 21st century, things got a little more complicated as the environment showed enough degradation that a third-party had to appear to influence the political landscape, known as the Greens Party. Beyond that, other parties will have diverse opinions and agendas about why they exist and these tend to come and go with each election. The only countries that do not experience this type of political system are those described as socialist nations. Here, the aim is for one leader and supporting members receiving benefits to maintain power and wealth at all costs and eliminate any opposition from the people. The workers' pay is always very low and the treatment is often quite bad. Only those running a business are permitted to do better and have enough wealth so long as they pay their dues to the dictator running the nation. Also, looking after the environment is an even lower priority compared to Western democratic nations.

Not surprisingly, we see many of these early businesses run by males. Their strong L-brain skills helped to improve the efficiency and complexity of various products in an attempt to meet demands as well as provide unique selling points to the products for the more discerning buyers.

As Western Europeans applied more L-brain skills and views of unlimited resources and energy inefficient practices to the rest of the world, the arrival of the first Europeans to Australia saw the introduction of many traditional "non-recycling" ways of farming the land, hunting for animals, and gathering other resources as needed not only to survive but also to become famous, powerful and rich. For example, the new settlers effectively stopped "patchy" burning by Aborigines. Eventually the fuel loads on the ground built-up and the appearance of massive broad-scale and intense fires have become the norm in modern Australian life.

As for the hunting techniques employed by white settlers in Australia, this has effectively wiped out 20 mammal species weighing between 35 and 5,500 grams in size. All we have remaining are a few small animals and only a very few large "high breeding" mammals like kangaroos and emus to survive on the remaining tough, more fire-resistant vegetation of the Australian continent. As a result, the Australian continent combined with increasing carbon dioxide emissions from the growing industrialised world would see the land dry up significantly and lay the foundations for bigger and more devastating droughts and bushfires to sweep across the states.

By the time the 21st century would come around, the pressing issues on many Australians would be where to find enough fresh water, how to allocate the remaining resource in an efficient way to maintain their way of economic and social life, how to combat the bigger and more intense bushfires, and what to do during the longer and more intense droughts that arrive (as well as the occasional bigger floods when the few rains do come). These are the latest issues to preoccupy people trying to maintain the current economic system with its limited recycling solutions and over-emphasis on the economy and supporting businesses with poor environmental practices, and at the same time demand more consumers to magically appear from new families to help maintain and expand the economy.

Sure humans may enjoy the occasional and rare climatic conditions known as the "El Nina" to bring back some of the rains and give a false sense of security to the Australian people as they say "She'll be right, mate!". But unfortunately it is all too short lived. Australia is just one of those countries where it will experience longer spells of more intense and extreme droughts conditions under global warming.

Perhaps the Australian people should concentrate more on rebuilding the environment, re-establishing the great inland sea, and developing fully recyclable products and services as the key to solving all the water issues. Or will profit drive the ambitions of many Australians in the 21st century towards self-destruction?


In the last 75,000 years, there have been only three massive volcanic eruptions that stood out in the minds of humans today, and probably even for those who lived at the time they occurred depending on where humans were located.

One of them was not officially recorded by humans as it occurred 75,000 years ago — too early for writing to have been invented. This was the Toba volcanic eruption in Indonesia considered the biggest as far as scientists are aware of. The size of this eruption was so massive that it caused a global volcanic winter lasting anywhere between 6 to 10 years, and kept the planet cooler than expected for another 1,000 years. This was an event that could have put an end to the human species and perhaps allowed another hominid species to evolve and take our place.

The second volcanic eruption, and considered the biggest in the last 10,000 years, occurred on the island of Santorini. The hapless Minoan civilisation took a massive gamble to live on the island nearly 3,500 years ago thanks to its relatively fertile soils and close range to major trading partners. Unfortunately the gamble did not pay off. Things took a turn for the worse when the volcano erupted abruptly and almost without warning. It would appear from the archaeological evidence that few, if any, people had an opportunity to escape this cataclysmic event. The only mention of such an event was more indirect and can be seen in the Bible after the story-teller gave some vivid accounts of certain disasters that took place in Egypt within a matter of a couple of days of the eruption.

If we think the Bible is a dubious source of historical information, then the only other volcanic eruption that was recorded with certainty and in a direct sense is the one that occurred on 15 April 1815. The aftermath of this explosion can be seen today as a 2,850 metre high (it was originally 4,300 metres) mountain topped with a large 6km wide caldera, known today as Mount Tambora (or Mount Tamboro). This one is also located in the same volcanic hotspot country of Indonesia.

There was one other relatively massive volcanic eruption that took place in recent times. Getting its more than fair share of volcanoes, Indonesia also gave the world another almighty bang from a place called Krakatoa in 1883, located in the Sunda Strait between the islands of Java and Sumatra in the Indonesian province of Lampung. The resultant explosion blew apart the small island, leaving behind its own large caldera to almost rival that of Mount Tambora.


In the mid-1800s, we had another "enlightened" male individual named Mikao Usui in Japan who decided to not only practice martial arts but later entered a Zen monastery to study the ancient texts of Buddhism known as the Sutras. It is here that he noticed the healing practices of an ancient religion called Reiki or Usui Shikiu Reiki Ryoho. Still unsure of the effectiveness of the practices, at some point in his life, Usui made the climb to the sacred Mount Kurama to fast and meditate for 21 days. As a way of counting the number of days, Usui collected 21 stones.

Then, something unusual happened after he threw the last stone. It is claimed a "brilliant light" approached Usui as he was meditating. He felt an energy came over him and had intense feelings of well being. He then saw certain symbols and methods of Reiki which gave him confidence he was on the right track with Reiki before he lost consciousness.

He eventually awakened and realised he had received what he described as the power to heal.

As healing is a form of love, today the religion of Reiki continues as a handful of Reiki leaders attempt to re-kindle the positive side of the ever-flowing light energy of the universe as a healing method (most probably electromagnetic radiation concentrated by our bodies and emitted usually through the hands to produce a sense of warmth, and so opening up blood vessels and helping to enhance the healing process within living tissue). It also teaches the importance of the principle of love during the healing process (perhaps by getting the body to emit the right hormones and other biochemicals for raising the immune system response to fighting infections).

Or exercising and massaging the tissues regularly can probably generate the same level of warmth, extra blood flow, and hormones to help with the healing process?

It is interesting to see these stories of men who once lived a rich and/or comfortable lifestyle and later changed to a more frugal and simpler life, learning some skills to heal, and after seeing the injustices and/or inequalities of modern society, try to do something to bring back balance. These are not unusual events in history. The question is, are we learning from these "enlightened" men and applying them in modern society to ensure all problems are solved? Or do we need an "enlightened" woman this time to sort things out? We hope humans won't need to go that far.

Or else you can be sure God will find a solution. Why not throw down an asteroid or two on Earth and then maybe people will quickly get their priorities right?

Then again, with the way the planet is warming up and too many people are living and becoming excessively profit-motivated, perhaps God will not have to do anything. We will solve our own problems in a way that ensures we are no longer around on this planet.

Let us hope there is time for humans to do the right thing.


The possibility that something alien could be travelling around in the skies of Earth inside glowing symmetrical flying objects surrounded by a cloud on occasions especially during the time of Moses may have returned. Although such objects have been observed throughout history, a greater number of sightings began to get reported at a time when humans developed primitive balloons and airship technologies in the late 19th century to help lift people off the ground. It is possible people might be misinterpreting UFOs as man-made balloons, but sightings of fast-moving (often against the wind) glowing disks started to emerge and get reported in some newspapers (around 1890s).

The flying objects would reappear towards the end of World War II. Very little details could be discerned other than as bright glowing objects chasing or tailing the aircrafts of American and other allied forces in the daytime. During the time they appeared, pilots called them foo-fighters, only to move away and reappear again in northern Europe where they would act like mysterious rockets coming down from the sky. In Sweden, you will find a handful of interesting UFO reports showing a more close up view of these unusual-shaped objects. They would disappear and concentrate their presence in the lower south-western corner of the United States where a lot of the testing of new aircraft, the first atomic bomb, and other military and scientific activities were taking place.

About two years after World War II, sightings of unusual symmetrical flying objects proliferated in the United States and other developed nations. What makes this period more interesting is the level of detail in the UFOs. Indeed, people were reporting quite specific features and characteristics relating to these objects and not seen in man-made aircraft. And they were looking decidedly artificial and real. The most logical and rational explanations for these uninvited visitors by scientists were based on what was familiar and known at the time, which was mainly either secret U.S. military experiments or natural phenomena. And if the observations are a little too unusual, why not categorize them as hallucinations or hoaxes?. Much easier to solve the problem using these rational explanations while the more unusual and close-range UFOs have no logical solution in the eyes of most scientists as yet.

However, the USAF was finding unusual UFO reports of "electromagnetic disturbances" involving "radiation" and "induction fields". Something that the first Project Blue Book director, Captain Edward James Ruppelt (1923 - 1960) remembered and wrote about in his 1955 book, Report on Unidentified Flying Objects. So for some people investigating these objects, it wasn't a straightforward "find a natural or man-made explanation and be done with it" kind of scenario. Rather, something else was going on.

Whatever some of the more unusual close-range UFOs were meant to be, the rapid technological developments in the U.S. would become a prime focus for a series of intense UFO waves between 1947 and 1964, including a remarkable event in New Mexico of something symmetrical in shape flying in the air and dropping pieces of a super-tough shape-memory titanium-based alloy (of a purity that could not be manufactured to any reasonable quantity in 1947 and 1948 by anyone on Earth) from its outer hull, and eventually crashing in New Mexico together with unusually small and very thin bodies and large heads on the night of 2-3 July 1947. Since the event occurred, the USAF and Army have done everything possible to cover it up to this day, but not perfectly as we will discover. The efforts to maintain secrecy would include a complete denial of the existence of UFOs (there can be only a natural or man-made explanation even if more scientists in the 21st century are coming around to the view that there must be life, and intelligent and technological as well, in the universe). Never would the military like to see the possibility of aliens, let alone anything to suggest the UFO reports could advance science , such as the potential to reveal a new electromagnetic technology. Yet despite such efforts, more and more cracks in the cover up would emerge as people continue to report them, and the UFO observations get more closely analysed with some scientists discovering important discrepancies in the official explanation given by the USAF (the people responsible for allegedly recovering and analysing the original crashed disk materials and bodies, as well as looking at the UFO reports in Project Blue Book and other taxpayer-funded investigations).


On 30 June 1908, an object was seen hurtling from space at approximately 7.15am. The object entered the Earth's atmosphere and turned into a bluish-white ball of fire as it raced across the summer sky, leaving behind it a trail of multicoloured smoke. Soon afterwards, at 7.17am (Siberian time), it exploded at an altitude of 16 kilometres above the ground with a blinding flash of light and releasing the energy of a thousand Hiroshima atomic bombs in a desolate region near the Podkamennaya Tunguska River, in remote central Siberia.

As a result of the massive explosion, over 3000 square kilometres of pine forests ignited and continued burning for days, ferocious winds rattled doors and windows of people's homes and 600 kilometres from the epicentre, and tremors were recorded at Irkutsk's seismographic centre nearly 900 kilometres to the south. The explosion was of such tremendous proportions that almost all trees within a radius of 64 kilometres around the blast site (approximately 80 million trees) were flattened outwards like match sticks.

The accompanying thunderclaps could be heard up to a distance of 80 kilometres. Dirt and burnt debris was sucked-up and thrown 20 kilometres above the Tunguska region to fall as a shower of 'black rain' within 24 hours. Massive glowing silvery clouds suddenly appeared over northern Europe and Siberia, which became so bright during the next few nights that in some places it was possible to read a book at midnight without the aid of artificial lights. When Russian scientists finally investigated this remote and mostly uninhabited area notably Leonard Kulik, a mineralogist nearly 20 years later, no crater or meteor rock was found.

Further discussions with witnesses near the scene of the explosion reported a blinding flash, expanding shock waves, black rain of debris, and an apparently mushroom-shaped cloud formed immediately after the blast. This made some scientists think that perhaps it was a nuclear explosion of some sort. However measurements of radioactivity in the Tunguska soil using sensitive equipment were performed some fifty years after the incident. Scientists found little signs of radiation. The only that could be found was radioactive caesium-137 traced in much higher quantities than normal in the inner rings of living trees that would coincide with the 1908 explosion. Consequently, some people have proposed that a nuclear-powered spaceship went out of control and crashed in this sparsely-populated area of swamps and forests.

Today scientists have opted for a natural explanation: that an icy comet fragment (or possibly a small asteroid covered with ice) previously lost in the glare of the Sun weighing between 100,000 to more than a million tons, and measuring up to 70 metres across, collided with the Earth at a speed of perhaps 100,000 kilometres per hour, leaving no trace of itself after impact. Or if it was a rocky asteroid, the size would be about 10 metres across.

Whatever it was, scientists are confident it was of natural causes.


Conflict between certain nations in Europe culminated with the advent of World War I from 1914 to 1918. Over a million soldiers from up to a dozen countries were sent to their deaths by their unimaginative, narrow-minded, and highly profit-motivated and power-driven male leaders to fight a war that could have been avoided in the first place if the knowledge from certain wise men in the past were heeded. If only people learned to share their resources and allowed economic development and trade among all nations while being more accepting of differences in our beliefs, ideologies etc., things could have been very different today.

People would naively describe World War I as "the war to end all wars". We now know this to be untrue.

As if we have not learned anything about setting a brighter future for generations to come in all nations, World War II began in the 1930s among essentially the same nations (e.g. Germany, France, the UK, Australia and Russia) with assistance from the United States at a late stage (the attack on Pearl Harbour in Hawaii by the Japanese got the Americans involved) over what was believed to be economic hardship placed on Germany by European nations after the previous world war and how a German leader emerged with delusional ideas of turning his nation into the greatest on Earth at the expense of other nations and a willingness to invade other nations to achieve this goal.

Again this is a continuing saga of certain male leaders who simply cannot think right and in a balanced way and follow the principle of love. Males are too obsessed with their own wants and desire for power. And at what cost to achieve this stupid aim? If people are going to get hurt by such actions, expect other people to fight back.


Albert Einstein completes his most ambitious theory yet. Expanding on his Special and General Theory of Relativity linking mass (and the gravitational field), time and length with speed and acceleration, he finished off his work with a look at how the electromagnetic field affects the gravitational field (which in turn affects mass and all the other factors covered in the special theory of relativity). Without giving away too much, it would appear Einstein had realised that the oscillating electromagnetic field (or radiation) not only creates the gravitational field, but may, in fact, be the gravitational field. If the latter is true, we live in a purely electromagnetic universe ruled by radiation. It is radiation that makes every single atomic and subatomic particles and their interactions. The fundamental force of nature is looking like the (oscillating) electromagnetic field, and any other exotic force of nature created by humans is expected to have an electromagnetic explanation behind it when analysed deeply enough.

Even though Einstein kept his unified field idea quiet, by 1943, the U.S. Navy may have stumbled on the idea by accident. Rumours have it that a ship was rendered invisible using several large degaussing devices to generate a powerful pulsing magnetic field in resonance (i.e., radiation). The aim was to create a powerful gravitational field to bend the light from the ship back on itself and allow other light to bend around it in order to allow an observer to see what is behind the ship. Unfortunately, without adequate protection to the sailors involved (whoever they are, as no names were ever revealed) in the experiment through the use of skintight metal suits to dissipate the extra current, heat generated by the current (on belt buckles, watches, and other metal instruments and tools), and interruptions to electrical brain activity in the frontal lobes of the sailors, many were burned or suffered mental disorders. On seeing the adverse biological effects, the secret project was allegedly abandoned.

The concept of an oscillating electromagnetic field having a link with the gravitational field would make a come back in the 1950s when the USAF started to understand the electromagnetic propulsion system of at least one recovered crashed disk from the late 1940s.


Another man emerges into the world with, yet again, the same realisation as some other broader-thinking male leaders in the past of how important the principle of love is in solving world problems and why we should focus more on the spiritual adventure aspect of our lives rather than our constant obsession with the materialistic universe and using it to be rich and powerful. He was born in India. Many years of personal experience and in watching the oppressed people in his nation get controlled under British rule in India, not to mention the considerable time he had to think about the issues of the day, allowed him to develop the necessary personal moral behaviours and discipline based on the principle of love which he believed would help his people to solve their problems at the time.

His name would be Mahatma Ghandi. A quietly-spokened eccentric character with a unique way of dealing with the repressive and profit-focused British authorities in his time. Of interest in this regard is his propensity to make things very expensive, socially embarrassing, and difficult for the British elites to handle the sheer numbers of Ghandi supporters as well as the man himself even when he was sent to prison. He was also media savvy to the point of showing the worse side of the British authorities during a time when it seemed the British empire was fixated on protecting its acquired wealth and maintaining control of India, and trying to create the perception that everything is fine and under control. Yet the reality has no where near what the authorities had hoped, at least not in the country of India.

For British citizens occupying foreign lands, there was this view of unlimited resources to acquire and sell and so benefit from the power of economics as a means of getting rich. Such a financial goal and the chance to live an easy life had allured many British males at the time. For a while this view looked as though it would continue to march on unimpeded as if there is no tomorrow no matter what could be happening to the environment and to other people. The power of love was not going to stop this kind of thinking. It would take World War II to nearly bankrupt the British Government to eventually force the authorities to let go of India and allow this nation to become independent and so fulfilling a lifelong dream Ghandi had for his homeland.

However, the religious tensions between Muslim and Hindu people in India escalated. There was a separation of old India into a new India and Pakistan (the new and secure home for Muslim people). The dividing of old India was not to Ghandi's liking. He continued to fight for equality, this time among the Muslims living in India. Unfortunately, this ended up being too much for one Indian man who felt strongly against the Muslims, and it was enough to see Ghandi get assassinated by this misguided individual.

People still have not learned the principle of love.

When will we finally learn?


Something interesting occurred in the deserts of New Mexico, on the night of 2 July 1947. The event would somehow forever change the attitude of the U.S. military toward UFOs and all manner of denial in the existence of UFOs and what they may represent in terms of something to advance science would be attempted to keep people away from the subject and focused on more pragmatic things..

According to witnesses at the time of the incident, a strange symmetrical glowing object allegedly flew over the city of Roswell in the late evening of 2 July 1947. Apparently it was headed in the direction of a large thunderstorm that was sweeping over New Mexico.

A couple of hours later, an odd explosion was heard by a rancher and his family in the midst of numerous lightning strikes over one particular area of the desert. It looked as though something was attracting those lightning strikes before it all suddenly died down immediately after the explosion.

As can be gleaned from the testimonial evidence, unusual wreckage was discovered by the rancher (and observed by a young boy from a neighbouring rancher's family while sitting on his horse and watching the rancher inspect the materials) at roughly the place where the explosion took place. As the rancher could see, apart from the shape-memory metal foil (the most abundant material), the rancher picked up an unbreakable and thin plastic parchment sheet that he could not burn with his cigarette lighter, and a number of semi-flexible and unburnable plastic beams with strange symbols on them. Again these beams showed the same unbreakable quality that would astound even his own experiences of man-made materials, and yet it was clear to him that something had stressed these unusually tough and unimaginably lightweight beams to beyond normal tolerances. Did the lightning strikes somehow played a pivotal role in all this damage? The rancher was not entirely sure, However, the thing that did get him excited the most was the plastic sheet pieces. Not being able to burn and break them for something so lightweight and extremely thin was nothing he had ever seen.

Based on a general inspection of the site and what we know from eyewitness testimony of the UFO heading in the direction of the thundercloud, it would appear that, just prior to the explosion, the object had changed course to a west to north-westerly direction and was accelerating away to avoid the thunderstorm. Unfortunately, whoever or whatever flew the object had made the wrong decision to increase power causing one of the lightning bolts to hit the outer surface of the object (probably closer to the back end where the extra energy to propel the object would be found). Whatever it was on the surface of the object to attract the lightning bolt, the object incredibly remained in the air despite sustaining significant damage as it flew at high speeds to get away from the thunderstorm, according to an expert military airman sent to investigate the debris field and noticing the distinctive pattern left behind by the materials on the ground when it was dropped from a height (it probably flew not too high above the ground, but was travelling at high speeds). Numerous highly tough, high-temperature resistant, and extremely lightweight materials were stressed beyond normal limits, resulting in a shattering and tearing apart of the materials into a great quantity of smaller pieces. The most abundant of the pieces came from the outer hull (where the most damage occurred) made of a dark grey metal foil, followed by a breach of the interior symmetrical metal compartment for protecting instruments and possibly some people inside. A thin plastic sheet acting as an insulator between the compartment and outer hull as well as some structural plastic I-beams to give this artificial object extra strength and rigidity were broken and torn apart. The shattered materials were blown out by the internal pressure of the cabin. When combined with the lightning bolt that initially tore through the flying object, the materials fell to the ground in a fan-shaped pattern, with most of the materials concentrated at the narrowest end and spreading out to over 600 metres from ground zero of the explosion, showing the object remained in the air and flew very fast as it tried to get away from the thunderstorm. If the object attempted to accelerate away from the area, it was a bad decision.

Whatever it was that flew and dropped a significant amount of materials on the ground, the rancher eventually went to Roswell to notify the authorities. He carried two boxes containing the materials to support his observations and showed them to the local sheriff, George Wilcox. Even when armed with the materials to show the city sheriff, and later an experienced military airman named Major Jesse Marcel sent from the Roswell Army Air Field to inspect the materials, everyone remained baffled by what kind of object had lost these pieces. Marcel was particularly disturbed by the materials. Despite his complete knowledge of every conceivable and known man-made flying object and the type of materials used to construct them, he could not find an explanation for what flew over the rancher's property. Not even the materials themselves looked familiar. Of particular interest, and which intrigued the military official the most, was the shape-memory metal foil pieces.

Marcel returned to base with one of two boxes of the materials to show to his commanding officer. Not much help from his boss. He too was stumped to find an explanation. So the boss decided he would send this military airmen with his experience in flying objects and a colleague to check on the crash location and carry as much of the material back to the base. Another USAF representative later visited the Sheriff's office to collect the second box brought in by the rancher.

A whole day was spent by Marcel and his colleague, Sheridan Cavitt, looking at the materials scattered on the local rancher's property and collecting as much as possible and as far as they could walk, They were left scratching their heads about the nature of the mysterious object. The only thing they could do was carry as much as they could to the base in two vehicles and later told the commanding officer more of the materials still remained.

A group of military personnel in several trucks was assembled and sent to the wreckage site. The soldiers carefully combed the area. Some of the men travelled further along the route allegedly taken by the flying object to a point approximately 30 kilometres from the initial explosion site. It is here where some men made a startling discovery: bodies had been found, and they were small and unusual looking individuals. Investigators later learned that potentially up to three small bodies were recovered, all of which appeared deceased (one was badly burned, another was partially burned, and a third showed no obvious signs of injury but seem to have fell out of the "craft")..

It was at this point that things began to get very secretive at the Roswell air base, as one reporter had noted. This reporter was held at the base against his will following his efforts to reach the site in the hope of watching the whole operation. The military quite flatly refused. However, given the reaction and quiet discussions taking place among some of the military personnel, the reporter realised some bodies were found on the rancher's property.

As for the rest of the object, it is claimed a civil engineer and some archaeologists and students came upon the object and additional bodies some 200 kilometres to the west. All this happened presumably on the same morning that the rancher first discovered his unusual debris. Why this belief? The things that were linking the two, apart from the unusual bodies, is the dark-greyish metal skin found on the disk, and the civil engineer's mention of having seen the disk sometime in the summer of 1947. In terms of the metal foil making up the hull of the disc-shaped object, it was described as a "dirty stainless steel" material by the civil engineer. Dirty in the sense that it was like the metal had a thin film of black grease spread evenly over the surface to make the metal look darker, yet there was no grease to account for this darker colour. It looked clean and smooth on the outside. The colour would not be too dissimilar to the metal lead (or perhaps tinfoil) if not a bit more darker, but certainly not bright silvery in colour. It was definitely not aluminium. This darker appearance of the metal on the disc-shaped object is highly reminiscent of the dark-grey foil found at the rancher's property with its distinctive shape-memory effect and extreme toughness. Is this the disk that dropped dark-grey metal foil and other debris over the rancher's property?

On closer examination of the object, it would appear that it had been ripped open. It was presumed the object had impacted with the ground to create the rip. Either that, or there had been an explosion, but it was hard to tell just by looking at the object. A number of bodies could be observed lying around outside of it as if the object had made a solid impact with the ground with the intent of killing all the crew members, or perhaps that was the way it turned out while the object flew at high speed into the ground. The interesting thing about the impact was how there was hardly any pieces of the object separated from the main body as if the materials were indeed very tough. Clearly something had opened up the object even if it had not lost pieces on hitting the ground. Everything about the object remained reasonably intact except for the obvious rip. At any rate, a few other people arrived claiming to be part of a university archaeological team. They too had noticed reflections off the metal object in the early morning sun at a distance. The main focus for everyone present at the crash site were on the bodies themselves. Just as the civil engineer did, they all looked intently at the bodies. Unusual looking in the sense that their heads were quite large compared to their short and unusually thin bodies. A one-piece dark-grey skin-tight suit was worn by all the dead crew members with no signs of different genders. Not seeing any breasts or any other feminine features in the crew member's faces, the civil engineer naturally assumed they were all "male". No buttons, zippers or other sharp-edged objects can be seen attached to the suits. There was something about the bodies that made them look too real to be dummies given the length of time spent by all the witnesses to observe the bodies (no one made an effort to look inside the object and test the materials). Were they hoping to find a survivor? Not likely after a short while of observing. It seemed the unusual appearance of the dead crew members and looking too realistic had made them wonder who or what these people were that had died.

Not long after, a group of U.S. Army military vehicles, including a truck, came up and started to cordon off the area. The civilian witnesses were told in no uncertain terms to forget what they saw and, as part of their patriotic duty, to never mention it to another soul. There was mention of the possibility of a secret military experiment, or so the civilians were told. However, to the witnesses who heard this claim, it was unlikely to be man-made and owned by the military after looking at the bodies in great detail. Without a thorough explanation of who or what the crew members were, they had no choice but to comply with the request from the military. They all had to leave the area with haste.

The archaeological team appeared to have kept quiet, and to a certain extent so did the civil engineer. However, the engineer was already an old man and knew he would not be around for much longer. To protect himself, he mentioned what he saw to his closest friends and his employer and asked them not to repeat it while he was alive. And he also did not give a precise date when it happened other than it occurred in the summer of 1947. Beyond that, the friends and employer could not give an explanation as to why he would mention his unusual experience other than it had to be real event given how serious he spoke of his discovery.

All the materials at the rancher's property and presumably the disc itself and bodies were sent to Wright-Patterson AFB for scientific analysis. Later, the materials and bodies would be sent to a more secret location for further analysis. During the initial analysis of the Roswell foil, we learn the first attempt by the USAF to seek outside scientific assistance to understand one titanium-based shape-memory alloy known as NiTi. Together with examples of other more bright silvery-coloured titanium-based shape-memory alloys, such as ZrTi, it looks as though the USAF had discovered a new shape-memory alloy and didn't want to advertise this fact with scientists at the Battelle Memorial Institute. Instead, the USAF needed help to purify titanium to a much higher level in order to reveal certain physical properties (a fact needed to reveal the shape-memory effect in NiTi and other titanium-based alloys), and to supply highly pure samples of NiTi in the titanium-rich end of the alloy's composition due to the limited information on the crystalline structure in this range.

NiTi, or any NiTiX (where X is one or more chemical elements added to NiTi and not more than 3 per cent in total to help enhance certain engineering properties), is distinctly dark-greyish just like the original Roswell foil. Could the Roswell foil be NiTi or NiTiX?

Did any president learn about the event and seen the original materials and bodies?

There are indications that President Dwight D. Eisenhower had a personal glimpse of the evidence during a secret trip he made one night with assistance from the CIA and the military. But that was believed to be the last time any president would get the privilege to see what was recovered. Rumours have it that his reaction to the materials and bodies was enough for him to visit the church the next day (not something the president was noted of doing on a regular basis) and never spoke again of what he saw. Since then, the CIA has chosen to go at it alone by not telling other U.S. presidents of the discovery.

Only one president posed the biggest security risk for the CIA and the U.S. military (i.e., the USAF) when he wrote a UFO memo on 12 November 1963 to the CIA director. Ten days later the president was assassinated.

7 JULY 1947

On 7 July 1947, Lieutenant General Nathan Twining suddenly changed his travel plans to attend a matter of utmost importance in New Mexico. This is confirmed by a 17 July 1947 letter from Twining to Mr Eric Schaefer of the Boeing Airplane Company, as well as directly by the Air Force which has since downplayed the event as a “routine visit”.

Following the visit, a document from Twining dated July 15th, 1947, has provided details of a preliminary examination of a flying disc recovered in New Mexico. The report explained some of the internal aspects of the disc and the electromagnetic effects the disc could perform, such as:

The choice of words in the document are interesting in the sense that they strongly indicate some kind of electromagnetic technology associated with the recovered disc. In particular, we are dealing with a "craft" that generates a high electrical potential (or voltage/charge), can store the energy in a battery and used elsewhere, resulting in some ionisation of the air when in operation, no moving parts are involved in generating the charge and moving the object, and everything has to be designed to avoid electrical sparks from taking place around sharp points and edges, as if a high amount of charge was being used on its external surface for some purpose.

MARCH 1948

Not long after witnesses observed a new shape-memory metal and other odd materials near Roswell, the USAF showed considerable and unexpected interest in the manufacture of a new titanium-based (the principal element of sudden interest to the USAF after the event and the ones to request new technology to increase the purity of titanium alloys) dark-grey alloy known as nitinol immediately after 1947 (i.e., in 1948) with assistance from scientists at the Battelle Memorial Institute in Ohio. However, the shape-memory effect of this alloy was not detected by the scientific community until after 1958, and since then the world of shape-memory alloys officially began to interest scientists in other developed nations.

Together with the unusual bodies, it would appear that the U.S. military had quickly realised the importance of the find and have decided (initially for fear of creating a mass panic) to keep it a secret.

The reason for doing so can be understood by looking at our history and the way the public would react toward anything weird reaching the Earth. At first the U.S. military generals, intelligence chiefs and U.S. President Harry S. Truman were deciding behind closed doors whether or not to reveal the truth to the public according to several documents released under U.S. FoI and discussions by UFO investigators with several retired top military brass willing to state what had happened on the record. However, as soon as evidence of panic and social chaos emerged from events such as the CBS radio broadcast of Orson Welles War of the Worlds, Truman decided it was in the best interest of his people and the rest of the world to maintain the secrecy at all costs.

The original Roswell materials, including the shape-memory foil, were sent for analysis at Wright-Patterson AFB. This is the place where nitinol was first studied in pure form immediately after 1947 with assistance from Battelle scientists as revealed in recently declassified USAF/Battelle reports written at this time at the request of the USAF at Wright-Patterson AFB. Not long after, much of the original materials were moved to another more secret location. Some scientific reports from the period may exist in secret vaults held at the air base, but it would take a major Congressional hearing and a courageous U.S. President to order the vaults open for public scrutiny and force the USAF to reveal the evidence they have kept of this momentous event.


The first the public learns of an electromagnetic technology in UFOs comes from an anonymous “magnetic science expert” mentioned in Frank Scully’s Behind the Flying Saucers in 1950. Apart from operating on electromagnetic principles, it was claimed by the scientist that the flying disc was constructed to follow these principles, such as:

In other words, there were no sharp edges or points on the outside of the disc. Portholes and the door were set flush and smooth. When the door closed, you could no longer see where the door was as it simply became part of the exterior hull. This latter observation has been noted of other UFO reports, in particular, the world famous Antonio Villas Boas UFO abduction case in which he observed looking back from inside the UFO how the door seemed to merge perfectly with the wall to reveal no gaps or edges to show where the door was.

Then there are the electromagnetic effects when the flying disc was in operation. The scientist mentioned a few of them. Certainly not an unheard of situation for numerous genuine UFO reports.


Canadian radio engineer Dr Wilbert Smith of the Department of Transport in Ottawa, noticed the electromagnetic nature of UFOs after reading Scully’s book and a number of UFO reports. He recommended a study into UFOs to his government. The Canadian government agreed. The project commenced in December 1950, and went under the auspicious name of “Project Magnet”.

The aim of the study was to find the electromagnetic principles that might be employed by UFOs and why. Part of the work also involved setting up instruments in a wooden hut to measure electromagnetic and gravitational fields of UFOs as they flew within range.

Even though one significant reading on all instruments was measured on the afternoon of 8 August 1954 during a foggy day showing that something had flown overhead, the U.S. government heard about the project and felt it was necessary to "encourage" the Canadian authorities not to pursue the evidence and the project itself for some unspecified reason.


Happy to talk the walk to the Canadians, the U.S. government would do the opposite by instigating major secret projects into advanced and controversial electromagnetic concepts in the 1950s.

The projects included Albert Einstein’s Unified Field Theory linking gravity with the electromagnetic field in 1955. And, with direct involvement from the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. government investigated the highly controversial concept of classical electrodynamics known as the “radiation reaction force” in 1959. This is the concept that looks at charged objects emitting radiation and how the mathematical solution reveals an astonishing exponential acceleration effect.

While physicists continue to debate the reality of this type of acceleration to this day, Thomas Townsend Brown, an American physicist and inventor, was close to working out how UFOs move through his patented asymmetric capacitor he called an electrokinetic device. He was the world first person to observe an unusual non-uniform acceleration of his device when given a sufficient oscillating voltage. A kind of runaway acceleration effect at a fixed and critical voltage level that forced him to reduce the voltage to prevent his device from flying away. It is here where the practical proof for the existence of an exponential acceleration would be found. It will be necessary to reproduce the experiments.

However, the inventor faced many setbacks, as if someone knew the importance of his work and did not want him to succeed. With no support from the U.S. government, and no satisfactory explanation for why his device moved, he was never able to complete his work and solve the UFO mystery before his death on 27 October 1985.

The bad luck also reached Professor Morris Ketchum Jessup (1900-1959), who was found dead in his car under suspicious circumstances in 1959. At the time, and with a Master of Science Degree in astronomy obtained in 1926 and lecturing at the University of Michigan and Drake University, Jessup was on the verge of discovering the secret behind Einstein’s Unified Field Theory.

As Dr J. Manson Valentine remembered from his discussions with his colleague Jessup in 1959:

"An electric field created in a coil induces a magnetic field at right angles to the first; each of these fields represent one plane of space. But since there are three planes of space, there must be a third field, perhaps a gravitational one. By hooking up electromagnetic generators so as to produce a magnetic pulse, it might be possible to produce this third field."

In other words, a pulsing magnetic field creates an oscillating electromagnetic field, or radiation. Therefore, the concept behind Einstein’s Unified Field Theory is that radiation generates a gravitational field.

It wasn’t simply the fact that radiation could render objects invisible using its own gravitational field as was the aim of Jessup’s work in understanding the U.S. Navy’s secret experiment on invisibility. There were other implications:

  1. Gravity is likely to have an electromagnetic explanation. This must involve radiation pressure and the application of the radiation shielding effect of matter to affect the pressure over one end of an object compared to the opposite end that receives the universal background radiation.
  2. Radiation is the key to explaining how UFOs move.
  3. There is a way to recycle electromagnetic energy, and so explain how to implement the radiation reaction force in a real-life technology.

It is in the UFO scene where a proper understanding of the unified field concept will help to explain how UFOs work. In other words, radiation is the key to understanding the UFO technology.

Could this be the reason for Jessup’s untimely death?

4 AUGUST 1962

Hollywood actor and socialite Marilyn Monroe(6) (1926-1962) may have had her life abruptly cut short by certain individuals after learning a bit too much about UFOs. Whether this is true or not depends on the veracity of a leaked CIA document discussing the results of a wire tap on Monroe’s phone as well as the testimony of several key witnesses versus the official explanation, as accepted by the U.S. Authorities, of what happened

If we accept the official position, it would appear that Monroe was found dead on her bed at around 3:40am on Sunday, August 5, 1962. She had either accidentally overdosed on prescription sleeping pills, or she committed suicide(7). As the official coroner's report written by Thomas Noguchi, M.D. concluded:

"Miss Monroe has suffered from psychiatric disturbance for a long time. On more than one occasion...when disappointed or depressed, she has made a suicide attempt."

The alternative version of events is that Monroe died between 10:30 and 11:00pm on Saturday, August 4, 1962, because certain people wanted her dead to prevent her from revealing certain secrets to the public.

So, what really happened to the famous Hollywood star? Was it murder or suicide?

What we do know is that written letters have surfaced(8) confirming a number of secret affairs between Monroe and U.S. President John F. “Jack” Kennedy. Historians are in agreement that at least one sexual encounter probably took place on March 24, 1962, at a hotel in Palm Springs. However, the letters also suggest repeated encounters starting in February 1962, only to raise some public suspicion of a possible affair by May 19, thanks to her sexually provocative rendition of the “Happy Birthday” song to the president, which happened on live television. Afterwards, the president, who was still married to his wife Jackie, decided to end the relationship with Marilyn on July 16, 1962, fearing it could affect his career and marriage. Luckily this didn’t prove difficult, as Monroe had become infatuated(9) and eventually had affairs with Kennedy’s younger brother, Robert Kennedy, who was the country’s attorney general at the time. But even after the affairs ended with John Kennedy, Monroe continued to attend social functions with the president right up to July 26, 1962 as confirmed by a confidential FBI memo.

The only tricky part in all of these affairs with Robert Kennedy is that Monroe was falling in love with him. This meant that any end to this relationship with him could turn out to be a much harder proposition for Monroe to handle. She could easily get upset and angry, as she may have felt like she was being used by Kennedy for sexual gratification and that he never really loved her to begin with.

Perhaps a good enough reason to commit suicide?

However, the CIA document alludes to another possibility. One that is more disturbing.

The alleged CIA document first came to light in the spring of 1992 when security officer and private detective Tim Cooper allegedly received a poor-quality photocopy of the CIA memo from Thomas Cantwell, who Copper believed to be a former CIA employee. In 1994, Cooper sent a copy to another private detective Milo Speriglio, writing anonymously as "an unknown well-wisher". Speriglio passed away in 2000 at the age of 62 without commenting on the document. Mr Steven Greer reviewed Speriglio’s work and his vast collection of documents. He came across the anonymous "well-wisher" note attached to what was purportedly a genuine top-secret CIA document. Further investigation eventually led to an identification of the man who sent the document. However, in an attempt to avoid creating undue attention, Cooper sent an email on April 23, 2009, to UFO researcher Robert Hastings claiming the document is a fraud.

The only other indication that the document could be a fake is the appearance of the word "MJ-12". Other leaked government documents mentioning MJ-12 in more recent times have been found to be fakes due to the type of typewriter used to create the documents (it was only available well after the alleged dates shown) as well as the obvious forged presidential signature (it was photocopied from another document)(10). Even so, it need not be the case that an MJ-12 group had never existed in history. Apart from Cooper choosing to change his mind and the mention of an MJ-12 group, there is virtually no other evidence to put this CIA document on Marilyn Monroe in the "fake" category at this stage.

However, the unusual chain of events and discrepancies surrounding Monroe's untimely death cannot be explained properly unless we consider the contents of this intriguing CIA document and the latest testimony from key and new witnesses who were present on the day of Monroe's death. For all intents and purposes, the document could potentially still be genuine.

Analysis of this document dated Friday, August 3, 1962, suggests that not only was Monroe's phone wiretapped(11) for several months prior to her death following her relationship with John(12),but also Monroe told Howard Perry Rothberg, an antique dealer who also acted as a designer for the rich and famous in New York and a close associate of journalist Dorothy Kilgallen with insightful and reputable articles on UFOs to her name, that her diary contained sensitive secrets obtained from President John F. Kennedy. Unbeknownst to both women at the time, the CIA also had allegedly also wiretapped Kilgallen’s phone. If the CIA document is meant to be a fake, it must be a particularly good one considering one would expect the CIA to monitor Kilgallen. Her work on UFOs was already enlightening and showed an effort to reveal the truth. It just wouldn’t be proper for the CIA not to have a tab on her whereabouts, what she was doing, and who she was talking to. What makes this document more interesting is how, in the conversation between Kilgallen and Rothberg, the R word was mentioned in relation to the most famous crashed UFO in history. Given what we know of the continuing secrecy behind the Roswell case and the USAF’s lack of transparency of the USAF in explaining the work it was doing in shape-memory alloys and the bodies that were found, we can be sure the Roswell case remains of utmost importance to the U.S. government. In that case, it makes sense for any mention of Roswell to affect certain people in this government. As it turned out, the proverbial manure did hit the fan, considering Monroe’s death was on either the night of Saturday, August 4, or early hours of Sunday, August 5, 1962.

If this is true, Rothberg may not have necessarily known who Monroe was. But it seems like Monroe probably knew who he was and his connection to Kilgallen. She may have read further into the UFO situation, and Kilgallen's name may have cropped up in relation to the Roswell case.

If anyone would be interested in the Roswell case and could cause the most damage to the U.S. government, it would be Kilgallen.

Now, for this scenario to have traction, there must be a moment in history when the U.S. president could pass on such a secret to Monroe. This can be observed during the period when the two were cavorting with each other between February and March 1962.

So apart from sharing his naked ambitions with the famous Hollywood actor, the president may have also been a little too relaxed and willing to share certain government secrets with her. Not an inconceivable situation. Looking back in history, it was well-known during the Cold War with Russia how the KGB in the Kremlin made full use of female spies to have sex with targeted men in order to obtain certain secrets. The tactic did prove to be highly effective on more than one occasion. In the case of the president and Monroe, it is not difficult to imagine following an intimate moment in the bed that the topic of UFOs could easily have cropped up, which was a popular topic at the time. Perhaps the president told Monroe of a secret visit he made to an air base to view the remains of the original Roswell debris and recovered bodies. It may have given her considerable confidence in the reality of UFOs because the president was the one to have seen the evidence.

It is probably worth mentioning that rumors did circulate some years later of another U.S. president who allegedly viewed the original Roswell materials and bodies. It occurred on one mysterious day in which the whereabouts of President Eisenhower were said to be the least documented in history. As the story goes, a certain time frame for the president on a particular day was allegedly spent meeting a dentist. However, the dentist in question had no recollection or written evidence to support this visit. No one else has seen the president to vouch for his whereabouts, either. Then, within days of the time frame in question, people noticed Eisenhower had visited a church with his wife to pray for which he was not known to do previously. Prior to this day, Truman was the only other president to be aware of what happened near Roswell. However, if John Kennedy was the third president to have had a secret private viewing of the UFO evidence, this may have occurred just before Kennedy suddenly made his ambitious announcement before a special joint session of Congress that he would put the first human on the Moon in his speech on May 25, 1961. From this moment on, John Kennedy felt confident in the reality of UFOs and became personally interested in the subject.

Robert Kennedy, on the other hand, was not so open and willing to divulge government secrets, even when lying in bed with a famous Hollywood celebrity(13). If anything, the affairs Monroe allegedly had with Robert Kennedy were kept more secret to a level where he could later deny this claim. Of course, if anyone could set the record straight in this regard, it would be Monroe and her diary, as there is no reason to believe she would not have written a record of these intimate moments with Robert Kennedy as well. However, conveniently for him, the diary no longer exists.

At any rate, a time came when it was alleged that Robert Kennedy had to end the relationship with Monroe.

A de-classified FBI document(14) seems to explain what happened. It claims Robert Kennedy was "deeply involved emotionally" with Monroe and was contemplating on whether to divorce his wife Ethel and marry Monroe. After much thought, he decided against this. Monroe then learned of his decision, which was enough to affect her work at the studio; eventually, her contract was cancelled due to a "reliability" issue—that is, not arriving at the film set. Monroe made several phone calls from her home to Robert Kennedy at the Department of Justice in Washington for help. At first, he said he would take care of it. When nothing was done, Monroe made a final call to Robert Kennedy in which some unpleasant words were exchanged. The document claimed "She was reported to have threatened to make public their affair".

However, the CIA document indicated another secret, along with the affairs, Monroe was prepared to reveal to the press. With Monroe in love with Robert Kennedy, one can imagine how quickly she became upset over his decision to stop the relationship. She wanted to be with Kennedy—when she couldn't, she decided to do something to get back at him (and his brother). She wanted to hurt the Kennedys by doing the one thing that was most damaging to them: revealing to the press the secrets she kept in her diary.

But there was one secret that would also hurt the CIA. As the CIA document claims, Monroe contacted Rothberg to let him know she would make an announcement to the press and potentially pass on sensitive information to Kilgallen with his help in relation to this other secret.

As people would say, "Never throw the baby out with the bath water". There could be some truth to this document. It is either that or the CIA document is not genuine, and Monroe was simply having mental health issues. Her death was presumably inevitable due to her depression, and there was nothing going on in her life to cause all of this. It was entirely an accidental overdose and that was it.


However, certain eyewitness accounts of what happened next have given support for the CIA document and reveal a sinister chain of events that suggest someone was not happy, that Monroe had to be "taken out"—but surely not on the grounds of revealing the secret affairs with the Kennedys, of which the Kennedys could easily deny if the diary can be taken from Monroe. Ii would be her word against the Kennedy’s in a legal sense. Women in those days were not likely to be believed in the face of two powerful men. But to kill someone suggests that Monroe was aware of something else—something that required more drastic action.

In essence, murder.

But why go to such drastic action on one woman? Only the CIA document can shed light on this matter.

Indeed, there are enough discrepancies that have emerged even prior to the witnesses speaking to the police and private investigators for a reasonable person to seriously consider the "murder" theory for Monroe.

For example, when the first policeman arrived at the scene, he became immediately suspicious as if time had been spent preparing Monroe's body to make her death look like a suicide, even right down to the fact that someone later inserted a tall drinking glass on the floor next to the small table beside Monroe's bed to suggest that she had ingested 30 to 40 pills. However, John Miner, the assistant Los Angeles District Attorney, who was present at the autopsy has re-evaluated the autopsy report and has concluded that Monroe did not die by ingesting sleeping tablets. In fact, the number of pills needed to be consumed should have shown signs of crystallization of the chemicals in the lining of Monroe's stomach walls, the upper intestinal tract, kidneys, and urine. There was none. Only her blood showed the chemicals. Therefore, the only way to administer the chemicals into the blood was through an injection of a barbiturate (pentobarbital, also called Nembutal).

Unfortunately, the report did not reveal signs of needle puncture wounds, even though there are ways to hide the mark. For example, by not killing Monroe straightaway and allowing blood flow to heal the tiny wound, the body can assist to hide the site of injection, making it difficult to detect, even by a coroner. However, even despite this knowledge, the level of concentration of the chemicals in the blood would not have killed a human as medical experts have stated—which means Monroe died by another means.

We also have certain witnesses' testimony that casts doubt over the suicide claim.

For example, friends (e.g., Henry Rosenfield, Sydney Guilaroff, Joe DiMaggio Jr. Mickey Rudin, and others) and Monroe's ex-husband and American baseball star Joe DiMaggio recall speaking to Monroe over the phone on that final day. All agree that she seemed happy enough and was looking forward to certain things she would do in her life. Not the type to contemplate suicide.

For example, Joe DiMaggio Jr. the son of the American baseball player, called Monroe at around 7.15pm on 4 August. He found her voice cheerful and upbeat with a sense of purpose in life.

If there was ever a moment on the day Monroe was allegedly not quite herself was observed early in the afternoon in the presence of the house keeper Mrs Eunice Murray, and her son-in-law and handyman Mr Norman Jefferies who was working on re-tiling the kitchen in Monroe's home. Jefferies thought Monroe looked a little unwell and sounded grumpy about something, but he couldn't quite put a finger on what it was. She was wrapped in a bath towel and told Mrs Murray and Jefferies that she wasn't feeling well and would go to bed to get some rest. However, by 9:00pm, Mrs Murray and Jefferies were watching a movie on NBC called The Day the Earth Stood Still. Monroe came in to watch some of the movie. There was no evidence she had taken drugs or alcohol. Indeed, she was observed to be in high spirits, even laughing and enjoying the movie. Then she returned to her bedroom.

Jefferies is a key witness of the events that took place at Monroe’s home. He had much to say about the people he saw come and go then. Surprisingly, the police never took his statement—nor did the press. In the testimony he gave many years later to investigator Anthony Summers, he claimed to have suspected foul play on that night but could not pinpoint exactly who carried out the fatal drug overdose on Monroe.

Confined to a wheelchair and terminally ill, Jefferies was not worried about getting into trouble with the U.S. government with his decision to explain his version of events. He wanted to tell the story as he recalled it and without embellishment. He said he arrived at the Los Angeles bungalow at 12305 Fifth Helena Drive owned by Monroe with his mother-in-law and Monroe's longtime house keeper Mrs Murray at 8:00am on Saturday 4 August 1962. It was around 2:00pm on Saturday when Robert Kennedy arrived. He was not alone. Actor Mr Peter Lawson drove and accompanied Robert. Lawford entered the house and told Jefferies and Mrs Murray to leave and gave them money to buy a drink. The two left and later returned to the house. The only other location Jefferies was present was in the neighbour's house when he and Mrs Murray were again asked at around 9:45pm, this time by Kennedy, in the presence of two unidentified men wearing dark suits and sunglasses with one carrying a small black bag to leave the house. By no later than 11:00pm, Jefferies saw Robert and the two men run away in a haste. This prompted Jefferies and Mrs Murray to return to the house. Since then, Jefferies only left the house the following morning at 7:30am Sunday, August 5. As he stated:

"I was there in the living room with Eunice when Marilyn died, and after that all hell broke loose."(15)

Robert Kennedy disputes any claims of him having been at Monroe’s house, saying he was in northern California during the weekend. But as the retired Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl Gates has admitted, Kennedy was in Los Angeles on the day Monroe died(16). Mrs Murray (hired by Monroe’s psychiatrist, Dr Ralph Greenson, as a reliable and trustworthy person) stated on the BBC documentary Say Goodbye to the President that she saw Kennedy that Saturday afternoon. And nearing the end of his life, Jefferies reaffirmed the claim, adding that Lawford(17) was with Kennedy. But they were not the only witnesses. A number of neighbors and their friends saw Kennedy arrive at Monroe’s home on two occasions—the Saturday afternoon, and later that night. For example, Monroe’s next-door neighbor Mary W. Goodykoontz, her guest Elizabeth Pollard, and two other ladies having an afternoon of bridge party recall seeing Kennedy leave Monroe’s home at around 2:20pm. He ran back to a white Lincoln convertible and raced off.

As further supporting testimony, a distraught Monroe telephoned her hairstylist and makeup artist Sydney Guilaroff telling him that Kennedy was at her house and had responded, "If you threaten me, Monroe, there’s more than one way to keep you quiet." In the light of the CIA document, it looks like Monroe was prepared to use something against her former lover, and Kennedy was not happy about this. He matched her threat with his own and seemed determined he would carry out the threat if he had to.

She called Sydney again between 8:00 and 9:00 p.m., telling him that she had just met with her psychiatrist. Sydney thought Monroe sounded fine and certainly better than during the call she made earlier. This time, however, Monroe offered an intriguing hint that she knew of a number of secrets in Washington and that she intended to do something about them after the weekend (apparently first thing on Monday). Again we can only appreciate what she meant by this when we refer back to the CIA document.

Despite these important eyewitness accounts, however, the authorities had no evidence to implicate Kennedy in Monroe’s death so the matter was not pursued. The reason for Kennedy being at the house has never been satisfactorily explained. Unless, of course, we refer back to the CIA document. This is the thing. We cannot ignore this document simply because it seems too incredible, unless there is something else to put it into context. Thus far, the document makes the events surrounding Monroe’s death appear perfectly sensible. The alleged event does not work if it was entirely a relationship breakup. The Kennedys could deny any affairs (assuming the diary can be found and destroyed). Furthermore, if the missing diary was taken by Robert Kennedy, any other secret would not make sense for why Monroe had to die unless it is a secret so sensitive and damaging to the U.S. Government (specifically the CIA) that having Monroe survive and mention it to anyone, especially the press, was considered too much of a security risk.

In 1975, Mr Lawford was tracked down. In a recorded interview, he told detectives that he was not at Monroe's house and never saw Robert on the day. He claimed to have spoken to Monroe by telephone (telephone records confirm this). He said the woman sounded about the same as before, which was her usual depressed self. He had a "gut feeling" on that day that something was wrong and regretted not visiting her home to talk to her. As the detectives mentioned in their report:

"She stated she was tired and would not be coming. Her voice became less and less audible and Lawford began to yell at her in an attempt to revive her."

The detectives said Lawford described it "as a verbal slap in the face."

"Then she stated, ‘Say goodbye to Pat, say goodbye to Jack [John F. Kennedy] and say goodbye to yourself, because you're a nice guy'," the report said. The phone then went dead.

So what is going on? Why are there plenty of people willing to testify that Robert was at the house twice and doing something to suggest that these were not social calls to the Hollywood actor. More interestingly, why was he seen running away from the house twice and claiming to police he was not near Monroe's home on the day of her death? Something isn't quite right, unless, of course, it has something to do with the CIA document.

Only the CIA document can make sense of all these events.

But does this mean Monroe was murdered? Could the contents of the CIA document reveal the true motive for having Monroe gone?

Mrs Murray is certainly another key witness. Her version of events would reveal more details of a possible homicide or murder. However, she has been frightened by the events that transpired on the night and the things she was told to do and later had to say to the police by Dr Greenson. As a result she has felt compelled in her initial statement to police to stick to one story.

Jefferies is in general agreement with much of what Mrs Murray has said except for one important detail: Mrs Murray never actually saw a light under the bedroom door and later called out to the woman to see if she was okay. Rather, the two of them returned to the house at around 10:30pm on Saturday night and found Monroe in the guest cottage next to the main house. Beyond that, Jefferies followed the recommendation of Greenson to hide elsewhere in the house claiming Greenson and Murray would handle the situation when the first police officer arrived at the scene. When the police officer was dismissed and taken over by a new group of policemen handling the case, Greenson received an agreement from Monroe’s personal secretary and press agent, Pat Newcombe, to support his story of what happened. Later, as a reward for Murray and Newcombe cooperating with Greenson, Murray was able to pay for a trip to Europe two weeks later, and Newcombe was put on the federal payroll "as top assistant" to George Stevens, Jr., head of the motion picture service for the United States Information Agency.

If Jefferies' testimony can be relied on, then what happened was that at around 9.40pm on the evening of 4 August 1962, Robert Kennedy and two unidentified men (one of whom was carrying a small black bag) entered Monroe's home unannounced. Murray and Jefferies were in the house watching a movie when Robert told them in no uncertain terms to leave. The two got out of the house and walked to a neighbour's house. They waited there. Jefferies was watching through the window. They heard noises from the guest cottage as if someone was looking for something. Monroe's large filing cabinet was broken. As if they still couldn't find what they were looking for, more noises could be heard. No one saw Monroe come outside. It was unclear to Jefferies what she was doing.

Jefferies and Mrs Murray were unaware that Monroe was on the phone in her bedroom talking to her friend and occasional lover Jose Bolanos at around 9.45pm. Bolanos recalls her happily chatting away with him. There was nothing to indicate she was upset about anything. Indeed, there was a sense of confidence in her voice as if she knew what she wanted to do. Then, she mentioned having a secret that “will one day shock the whole world”. Before she could say more, she said she heard noises coming from the guest cottage. Bolanos could hear her put down the phone without hanging up and went to investigate. She never returned.

The men eventually left the house in a haste, running back to their car. There was screeching of the tires on the road, as Jefferies remembers it—as if the men had done something in the house, or they had found whatever they were looking for.

By the time the housekeeper and Jefferies returned to the home, they either the two found Monroe in a comatose state in the guest cottage according to Jefferies, or the housekeeper claimed she saw a light in Monroe’s bedroom through the gap between the door and floor. The door was locked. She had a key herself to get in, but didn’t think too much about it. She took a nap. By the time she came back later to see the light and called out to Monroe at around 3:00am, something was amiss.

Whichever story is true, the two eventually realised Monroe was not responding. Mrs Murray called the ambulance and then the psychiatrist, Dr Greenson. This decision from Mrs Murray is confirmed by Jefferies. Soon Peter Lawford and close friends of the Hollywood star began arriving.

The ambulance attendant James Edwin Hall (and his driver Murray Liebowitz) arrived just before 11.30pm based on the correct chain of events by Jefferies. With Liebowitz's help, they moved Monroe into the main house. One of the men accidentally dropped Monroe onto the floor leaving a bruise on the "left side of [her] lower back". The autopsy report later showed the site of the bruising as evidence that Monroe was very much alive at the time she was carried. Hall decided to rest Monroe on the hard floor and tells Liebowitz to get the resuscitator from the van. He quickly inserts an oxygen tube into the woman to assist with her breathing. Something suggested to him that Monroe was still alive at this point. Hall claims Monroe's colour was returning to normal and believed it might be a good time to take her to hospital.

Suddenly Dr Greenson arrived and what happened next was unusual to say the least.

Dr Greenson tried to look like he was assisting Monroe. He ordered the ambulance officer to remove the breathing tube. Even though the officer disagreed with this, he had to do as he was told, as Greenson was an MD (the ambulance officer was trained to never challenge an MD). Then, the ambulance officer noticed another odd thing. Greenson then took out a syringe with a long heart needle out of his bag. He filled it with a fluid from a "pharmaceutical bottle of adrenaline". Hall was surprised to see Greenson had made no attempt to dilute the solution. Another strange observation noted by the ambulance officer was how the psychiatrist had to count how many ribs to go down (which an experienced doctor would not need to know). Hall remarked later that it looked like "he [Greenson] was still in premed school and had really never done this before". Then, it occurred to him that Greenson was just a psychiatrist and perhaps he may not have much experience with a needle. He had to let him continue. Greenson became aware his methods were alarming the ambulance officer. He said that his clumsiness and working things out were more of an attempt to make "a show of this" in front of others. With that said, he immediately plunged the needle only to hit a rib because of the incorrect angle he chosen. Yet remarkably, instead of pulling it out, he continued to push in the needle. He eventually entered Monroe’s chest by cracking the rib and quickly injected the fluid in or near the heart. If Monroe was not yet dead at this point, the psychiatrist would pronounce her dead within minutes of giving her the injection.

Greenson told Hall his services were no longer required. The ambulance officers had to leave the scene.

It was about this time when some mysterious plainclothes officers in a police car arrived claiming to be from the LAPD intelligence division. They never mentioned their names.

Jefferies watched the events unfold as he observed the men move Monroe’s body to the bedroom of the main house. The story of “suicide in the locked bedroom” started to take shape as the men placed pill bottles on a small table next to the bed, broke the bedroom window from the inside (later Greenson would claim to police that he was the one to break into Monroe’s bedroom and discover her body even though the glass was lying on the ground outside), and the door was locked from the inside and closed.

After the men left the house, Greenson remained at the scene until just after midnight. He went into Mr Lawford's Lincoln Continental sedan. The inebriated Lawford forgot to turn on the headlights as he drove at 70 to 80 mph with Greenson in the front seat. Beverley Hills Detective Lynn Franklin observed this and pulled the car over. Astonishingly, he chose not to give a ticket because Robert Kennedy was in the back seat. Instead, he gave Lawford proper directions and let the men go. Still no mention on the police radio of the death of Monroe. It would be several more hours before news of her death reached police.

Los Angeles International Airport had records to show that Robert Kennedy boarded a plane for San Francisco sometime between 12:30 and 2:00am in the morning.

By 4:25am, Norman Jefferies, Pat Newcomb, Mickey Rudin, and Monroe's personal physician Dr Hyman Engelberg were at the house when Greenson, also at Monroe's home, decided to call the police (or perhaps Murray was requested to make the call). Finally, to make sure there was no evidence of someone else having rectally-administered a barbiturate enema into Monroe at the time when Robert and his men arrived at the house and had to sedate her properly as if the initial injections through the skin did not have a sufficient effect of keeping her still and quiet, Greenson told Murray to clean the soiled bedsheets in the cottage.

The first police officer to arrive was watch commander Sergeant Jack Clemmons. He was told by Greenson that Monroe committed suicide. Greenson pointed to the empty Nembutal bottle as alleged proof. Clemmons was not entirely convinced. He noticed the way the body was face-down in the soldier’s position with her arms at her side and legs straight. And the bed sheets were too clean. From his experience, the way the body was laid down on the bed suggested that someone was trying to disguise needle marks. Furthermore, he noticed the lack of a drinking cup with water to explain the presumed number of pills ingested(18) by the woman based on the empty pill bottles. Later someone else placed a glass of water into the bedroom without Clemmons awareness. And just to add yet another level of strange behaviour, he also noted Murray was using the washing machine to clean bedsheets.

Clemmons wasn't aware of anyone else at the house other than Murray and Greenson. He acknowledged not checking all the rooms, including the guest cottage. If he did, he would have noticed that Jefferies, Newcomb and Mickey Rudin were hiding in those rooms at the request of Greenson. He spoke to Mrs Murray for her version of events, followed by Greenson. Mrs Murray was told by Greenson to choose the story of noticing the light beneath the door of the bedroom and calling out. Mrs Murray had to say that Greenson entered the bedroom by breaking the window on the outside where he noticed for the first time Monroe slumped on her bed. Greenson added that he found Monroe dead around 3.40am. There was no need to call the ambulance. With nothing else to go on, Clemmons had to accept the statements.

The Village Mortuary employees Mr Guy Hockett and his son Don arrived at 5:40am. Hockett noted the state of rigor mortis taking place due to a darkening of the skin on Monroe's face. He estimated the time of death was between 9:30 and 11:30pm.

Yet the police did not appear concerned by all of this or by the lengthy delay in being contacted. It was assumed Monroe was in her bedroom the whole time and had simply overdosed on the pills.

By the time reporters arrived, Sergeant Marvin Iannone dismissed Clemmons from the scene, and Dr Greenson made his quick exit from the house.

Still more discrepancies would emerge, this time with the autopsy report. When the first official autopsy report was written, it accepted Greenson's time of 3:40am for Monroe's death. However, this contradicts the advanced signs of rigor mortis on Monroe's face (i.e., it was darkening the skin) as seen in photographs taken at the morgue. The report had to be adjusted to show the time of death closer to around 11:00pm.

Also, a confidential source relayed to Jay Margolis claims that in the first revision of the report (which, like the diary, first police records and many other key forms of evidence, has also gone missing), Thomas Noguchi noted the needle marks behind Monroe's knees, the jugular vein in her neck, and under her left armpit. There was also the needle mark to the heart. When the final revised version of the report was released, however, Noguchi decided to handwrite "no needle mark"—not even the one to the heart.

About the only thing that had not changed in the report was the lack of crystallisation of the chemicals in Monroe's stomach and small intestines given the number of pills allegedly ingested. But because Noguchi wrote "no needle marks", he had to assume the pills were swallowed.

The cause of death was marked as accidental suicide. Case closed.

But now, with the advent of the CIA document and latest testimony from a larger number of witnesses and those not afraid to speak out, it is looking more like foul play had occurred. Either that, or Dr Greenson killed Monroe through gross medical negligence and incompetency. This is unlikely based on the testimony and the fact that the ambulance officer was present at the scene and assisting the patient with signs that she was looking better and a decision was being made to take her to the hospital. Therefore, it raises the question, Why kill Marilyn Monroe? To be more precise, what kind of secret warranted this kind of action?

One can safely assume the diary was found for the decision to kill Monroe to proceed (depending on the nature of the secrets she had written). And it is reasonable to think that the diary had influenced someone to kill Monroe. The diary cleared contained various secrets, such as the whirlwind affairs with the Kennedys. But would this be a good enough reason to silence Monroe? In the case of the affairs, this is not likely. Rumours were already spreading of a possible affair, at least with John Kennedy, and historians have learned that Jackie became aware of this and told him to sort it out or face a divorce. Furthermore, an affair is not exactly an Earth-shattering secret that would “shock the whole world”. Too many people were already thinking this secret might be true. If that is not enough, we know that if Monroe had survived to tell her secret affairs, without the diary it would be extremely difficult for anyone to take Monroe’s statements seriously. The Kennedys would simply deny any claim and life would go on.

The other possibility is that there could have been a secret regarding a possible sexual relationship with the psychiatrist. Unprofessional conduct on the part of Greenson with at least one high-profile Hollywood client may have sent his reputation into tatters, thereby ending his career. This is something that could have seen Greenson take matters into his own hands. However, the problem with this theory is that it makes no sense why Monroe had to be silenced. We can be confident the diary was found. Any secret about Greenson could easily be destroyed, along with secrets about the Kennedys. All that would be left is mere hearsay from an essentially unreliable and emotionally unstable woman. However, there is one more thing that makes this scenario even more unlikely. You see, the gripe Monroe had was not with Greenson. It was with the Kennedys, in particular Robert Kennedy. There was nothing Greenson had to worry about even if he did something unprofessional. Monroe was not going after him—only Robert Kennedy. The ones who had more to worry about were the Kennedys, and potentially the CIA, depending on how sensitive those secrets were.

Not even a secret decision by the president to kill the Cuban leader Fidel Castro would have warranted Monroe’s death. If one could somehow show such a secret was true, the president might get a slap on the wrist and a downturn in his polls, but things would continue as usual.

Therefore, the only reason to go as far as Greenson did must be because he was told by someone (everything is now pointing to Robert Kennedy with Robert Lawford in on the plan without knowing all the details of what was contained in the diary, although we cannot completely rule out the CIA as not having some involvement in the Hollywood star's death) to silence her permanently because of a more devastating and significant secret contained in Monroe’s diary—one that would hurt the U.S. government right to the very core, a secret so big and sensitive that it could not be told by Monroe to anyone, even without the diary present as confirmation.

Well, what other secret could be bigger and more sensitive than what really happened in the Roswell case? Hard to imagine a secret so big that Monroe had to die for it. More of a reason why the CIA document should not be ignored completely.

Thanks to the CIA document, we may have one possible scenario to consider. And a particularly good one at that given what we now know about UFOs. The strong possibility that UFOs could be a real phenomenon and remain a highly sensitive matter to the U.S. government cannot be overlooked, and all stemming from that one key moment in July 1947.


John F. Kennedy, the U.S. President for the period between 1961 and 1963.

Another man to face a similar unexpected ending to his life because of his insights into UFOs or willingness to divulge certain UFO secrets is former U.S. President John F. Kennedy.(19)

Kennedy wrote a memo ordering the CIA director to share all UFO secret intelligence files with the American space agency NASA, and ultimately with Russia as part of his effort to bring world peace and end the Cold War. At the time, Kennedy was not only interested in seeing the first man on the Moon, but he also wanted to make realistic and achievable efforts for greater co-operation and peace with Russia when he asked in a formerly Top Secret memo dated 12 November 1963:

"SUBJECT: Classification review of all UFO intelligence files affecting National Security.

As I had discussed with you previously, I have initiated [unintelliigible] and have instructed James Webb to develop a program with the Soviet Union in joint space and lunar exploration. It would be very helpful if you would have the high threat cases reviewed with the purpose of identification of bona fide as opposed to classified CIA and U.S.AF sources. It is important that we make a clear distinction between the knowns and unknowns in the event the Soviets try to mistake our extended cooperation as a cover for intelligence gathering of their defence and space programs.

When this date has been sorted out, I would like you to arrange a program of data sharing with NASA where Unknowns are a factor. This will help NASA mission directors in their defensive responsibilities.

I would like an interim report on the data review no later than February 1, 1964.

/S/ John F. Kennedy." (Original copy is with Robert and Ryan Wood, investigators of UFO-related U.S. government documents and was originally available from as of 1 July 2012. If the web page is moved, another copy can be found at as of August 2011. If it disappears again, get a copy from here.)

The memo came at a time when Kennedy succeeded in getting broad agreement in top level dialogue with the former Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev to work together on all future space and lunar projects and to release classified UFO files held by the CIA to NASA to help show to his Russian counterparts that UFOs were not examples of Cold War psychological warfare plans from his nation. Unfortunately, he never succeeded in his aim to release UFO information, let alone receive a response to his request. No UFO secrets would ever be shared with anyone, no matter how much the skeptics and the USAF under Project Blue Book in the 1960s would like to claim that UFOs are nothing more than ordinary natural and man-made phenomena, or so we are led to believe. The highly sensitive nature of UFOs to certain people in top echelons of the U.S. government and military was made evident when at 12.31 p.m. on the hot, sunny afternoon of 22 November 1963, President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas. Who assassinated the president has remained one of the most contentious in history as the man allegedly responsible for the shooting, Lee-Harvey Oswald, was very soon after killed by Jack Ruby (born as Jacob Rubenstein), a night club owner with Mafia connections, before Oswald could ever reveal his knowledge to the public.

As history tells us, Oswald was led vulnerably by two policemen to the county jail on Houston Street in Dealey Plaza through a crowd of 75 reporters and numerous policemen and civilians. Just when somebody shouted "Do you have anything to say in your defence?" and a good time for Oswald to admit if he did it (and perhaps who else might be involved if he did shoot at the president), Mr Ruby suddenly pushed himself through the crowd, pointed a handgun at Oswald and shot him at close range. Oswald later died in hospital.

Ruby was arrested and sent to prison for his part in the killing, but he also wanted to set the record straight of why he did it and who else was involved to chief justice Earl Warren of the Warren Commission set up to investigate Kennedy's assassination. He claimed "my life is in danger", and "I want to tell the truth, but I can't tell it here". Before Warren could allow for it, Ruby quickly fell ill. Doctors diagnosed him with cancer in the lungs, brain and liver. He died three weeks later from pulmonary embolism in the lungs. No written confession or other evidence was found following Ruby's death. Presumably a coincidence.

Before Oswald was led along his final walk through the crowd by the policemen, he did attempt to state briefly to reporters previously that he denied killing the president (together with another man killed on the same day, a Dallas police officer named J. D. Tippit, on a local street nearly 45 minutes after the president was shot). He said:

"I don't know what dispatches you people have been given, but I emphatically deny these charges. I have NOT committed any acts of violence."

And the final thing Oswald said (and recorded on film by NBC News) prior to his assassination was as follows:

"Oswald: I'd like some legal representation but these police officers have not allowed me to, to have any. I, uh, I don't know what this is all about.
Reporter (off camera): Did you kill the president?
Oswald: No, sir, I didn't. People keep asking me that. Sir?
Reporter (off camera): Did you shoot the president?
Oswald: I work in that building [Texas School Book Depository].
Reporter (off camera): Were you in that building at the time?
Oswald: Naturally, if I work in that building, yes, sir.
Reporter (off camera): Back up man.
Reporter (off camera): Did you shoot the president?
Oswald: No, they've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I'm just a patsy."

Strangely these statements from Oswald never made it to the Warren Commission, the committee tasked with investigating the case and determining who was responsible for killing the president. Apparently the statements were not seen as relevant or important to the case.

The only damning evidence the authorities had against Oswald was his fingerprint on a rifle that was believed to have been fired at the president. The weapon was found in the library on the sixth floor (now confirmed to be the place where definitely two bullets were fired on the President, although the Warren Commission did go to extraordinary lengths to accept a total of three bullets as having come from this single weapon and with no one else being involved), just lying there to be discovered (by Texas police of all people, although not on the first initial look of the room, and no library staff noticed the gun just sitting in the room prior to the shooting). Basically, if we leave aside how the gun got there and who put it there, we have the mystery of how his fingerprint got its way onto the rifle. Apparently someone had left what appears to be Oswald's rifle for all intent for the police to find (rather conveniently) and it just so happens to have Oswald's fingerprint on it. Everything would seem like an open and shut case. Oswald must be lying. It was probably Oswald who brought in the rifle to the library without anyone noticing. Up to three bullets (20) must have been fired from what appears to be his rifle (which he did own a very similar if not the same weapon). It looks as if Oswald had been the one who pulled the trigger in an attempt to kill the president. So why not point the finger of blame at Oswald as being responsible for the whole event? It is the easiest and simplest solution.

However, we learn nothing in life is ever that simple. In fact, the situation had somehow got dramatically and unusually complicated following Oswald's death, raising the spectre of an extraordinary conspiracy with strong links to other people being involved in the death of the president (in particular, the CIA), and the considerable effort by these people to influence the public to think Oswald had to be the gunman and no one else. Anything else unusual seen, heard, or detected by other senses of the human body by various witnesses (such as the smell of gunpowder in the air surrounding the secret service agents' car behind the president's own vehicle suggesting someone in that vehicle had also fired from his weapon) must have an innocent and logical explanation. Yet the big picture is not supporting this. A bigger secret exists and it had to be maintained at all costs by those in the know. The President was definitely the target. He was doing something to upset the status quo. He was getting too dangerous for whoever wanted him dead. It would appear, after looking at all the evidence gathered so far, that the President had to be taken out because of a certain secret, whatever that might be. And to make sure Oswald would take the blame for this whole matter (and so avoid implicating other people in the killing), things were done to hide crucial evidence, confuse what went on during the event, and getting anything to point in the direction of Oswald as being the sole man responsible.

The whole conspiratorial nature of this event began when the autopsy report on the president was somehow lost (21), and what few poor quality photocopies of photographs exist of Kennedy's head show only from behind. This essentially hides the all-important crucial evidence around the side and front end of the head needed to determine whether the bullet that killed the president was an exit or entrance wound (ballistic experts say there is a distinctive pattern created by an entrance wound compared to an exit wound) and how likely it was that Oswald could have been in the right position to fire the fatal shot from the sixth floor room. Indeed a lot of the controversy and debate (and subsequent variety of conspiracy theories brought up by the public, and later added to by the CIA, which only succeeded in raising more questions than it answers) could have been cleared up right at the beginning with detailed access to the complete autopsy report and all photographs followed by a detailed analysis of ballistics on Oswald's gun to resolve the all-important question of how feasible Oswald was the shooter, and presumably the only one as we are led to believe. And if we didn't have another man with Mafia connections choosing to interfere in the legal and scientific process of getting to the truth, a full and complete story of what really happened and who was responsible could have been revealed if Oswald was allowed to go on trial and given a fair hearing. This is an unusual event with so many crucial forms of evidence having mysteriously disappeared or removed, and other evidence added with great convenience to suit a particular and preferred outcome and all done at a short period of time after the killing. it was enough to give most people the view that there has to be a different story from the one officially being told by the Warren Commission. Namely more than one gunman had to be present on the day of the assassination, and with links going back to the CIA, for whatever reason. And as of 2020, there is a strong possibility that Oswald may not have been one of the shooters. Unfortunately, with Oswald taken out by another gunman, it is impossible to listen to Oswald's side of the story to determine his whereabouts on a minute-by-minute basis, possible motives, and whether he was alone and had been present in the sixth floor room when the bullets began firing on the president. This is what happens when people don't do the proper investigations to find out before affecting those who are claimed to be responsible for the shooting. The old "shoot first and ask questions later" is a common mentality of American men (and still prevalent to this day with police shootings of black people with no reason given, as well as in the movie Fugitive starring Harrison Ford which shows it does not matter who the person being shot at is — anyone who is seen in a bad light is treated the same "we think you are guilty" way). And if there are secret agendas for why the shooting had to take place (and so far this is looking like the case), this just adds another layer of complication. No wonder this event is so messed up.

Let us see if we can sort out the mess.

Firstly, we know that Oswald did own a gun of the same type found in the sixth floor room. In March 1963, Oswald used the alias "A. Hidell" to purchase by mail order a 6.5×52mm Carcano Model 91/38 infantry rifle with a telescopic sight. Already investigators found something odd. After examining the advert, it was determined that other choices for a rifle could have been made by Oswald, and this had gun experts scratching their heads as to why Oswald chose what is considered to be a slow, clumsy, and increasingly inaccurate (as the rifling chamber gets easily worn) to use weapon compared to other much better rifles that were available from the same advert — so why did Oswald choose this rifle if the aim for him was to kill people? It is almost as if he wanted to purchase this weapon because he did not feel safe living in the United States (he lived in Dallas, Texas, where much of the American population there had strong right-wing views and fiercely patriotic and supportive of the democratic system and the United States) and would only use it as a weapon of defence if he was attacked or to scare off people rather than any form of offence on others. A bit like the excuse that Russia, United States, China, North Korea, and other countries have with stockpiling nuclear weapons. It is more of a deterrent. Having a gun is there to make other people think, "I better not mess around with him. He has a gun!" and hopefully they will treat him with a little more respect. At any rate, the rifle that was purchased fits remarkably well to what was found on the sixth floor of the library building. Or was it a coincidence? Not likely because the rifle found on the sixth floor just so happened to have Oswald's fingerprint. With this first vital piece of evidence, we can say with reasonable confidence that this is probably Oswald's gun. However, what is not clear, and with no official testimony from any witnesses, is whether Oswald had brought in the rifle to the library and was actually in the room on the sixth floor when it all happened, let alone firing at the president as the authorities were quick to state as the probable scenario. If there is the slightest possibility he was in there doing the dirty deed (the gun Oswald owned and the presence of his fingerprints would strongly suggest this), might as well see him as the culprit.

There seems to be further evidence that Oswald was not skilful at firing accurately with the rifle at the distance required to hit the President. There is evidence to suggest that he was trained to a level of marksmanship in his time as a marines soldier. Strangely all his knowledge of weapons made him choose a poor quality rifle. And his ability to shoot long distances appear to be poor with the rifle he bought unless he was given a proper military rifle and bullets. The only way to get around this inaccuracy and poor quality nature of the rifle he had bought was to get a sniper and expert marksman to adjust to the inadequacies of the Italian Carcano rifle design.

A more serious discrepancy are the number of bullets fired at the President. The Warren Commission is convinced that three bullets were fired.

However, no expert gunman could fire 3 bullets in less than 19 seconds at the President and expect to have any reasonable precision required from the sixth floor location using this type of gun (noted for getting inaccurate over time even with minor wear-and-tear of the rifling chamber) as an Italian investigation using professional marksmen has discovered. There was a reason the Italians put that weapon out-of-commission. It was a hopeless weapon to be using after a few dozen shots with it. It seems to be designed more to shoot a few rounds at the enemy and later the Italian soldier has to run back as quickly as possible to get a new rifle if he hasn't got shot and killed by the enemy. The manufacturer of the rifle were not expecting Italian soldiers to survive and return home. So you might as well give the soldiers a crappy rifle. Not only that, but there seems to be a strong possibility that Oswald was not alone in the room. Or, as the evidence is slowly emerging and falling into place, it would appear that Oswald was not on the sixth floor when it happened but someone else had access to Oswald's gun (it was found to have gone missing from Oswald's garage in his home on the day of the assassination) and this other person was more of a marksman to attempt this dreadful act on the president (but turned out he was not the guy who actually killed the president) and left Oswald's gun in that room for the police to find and so frame Oswald for the crime. Furthermore, the sequence of firing of the bullets revealed the first shot was a complete miss and hit the road beside the president's car. An expert marksman with experience of using the rifle would have been aware of this and had adjusted the aiming on the first go. But it appears the person who used the rifle for the first time had no idea had worn and bad the rifle was already. Whether Oswald was asked to fire his own rifle under duress by someone else, or he was at another location in the library building (16) and someone else did the firing, already there are strange things emerging about this case.

The case gets even more complicated and murkier in terms of the people who were seen in the library at the time of the shooting and the likelihood of Oswald being the man responsible for the shooting.

For example, according to the authorities, an additional fingerprint was found on a cardboard box in the room in a position next to the window where the rifle was fired out of it. At first the fingerprint seemed to match a man named Malcolm "Mac" Wallace (he had killed a man some years earlier for having an affair with his wife and his fingerprints were recorded and kept by the police). An experienced ex-Marines sniper and marksman, if anyone could have fired at the president at that distance from the sixth floor room, Mr Wallace would have had a much better chance than Oswald. Yet investigators could find no good reason why Mr Wallace needed to be in the room despite some witnesses placing him in the building at the right time. Or was it someone else who looked very much like him? According to Joan Mellens, a closer examination of the fingerprint on the box has now suggested that it may not match Mr Wallace's police record. And an alibi was found claiming Mr Wallace had been at his home sitting in his living room. Or did someone else look like him and had stayed at his home while Mr Wallace did the shooting? We cannot be absolutely sure about this.

The American authorities have not pursued this angle further. The presence of an alibi was considered sufficient to see Mr Wallace as not a suspect.

Then we have the question of how the third bullet managed to get fired from the library and kill the President.

One thing seems certain, it would have required incredible luck for Oswald to fire and hit the president at the distance required. Indeed, the Warren Commission acknowledged that the first bullet completely missed the President's car. The second bullet was more accurate, but could not achieve the objective of killing the President if this had been the aim. This second bullet entered the shoulder and exited from the president's neck. Yet he was able to calmly communicate to his driver that he was shot. It took a while, but a third and final bullet came out-of-the-blue from an unusual direction. And the nature of this final bullet was not normal. It did not behave like the ones fired from Oswald's gun Furthermore, the angle for this third bullet to arrive to hit the president seem different. At first it looked like it came from the front but this was probably because of the way the bullet exited the president's head. The likely direction is coming from behind but from an angle of entry that looks too difficult to achieve using Oswald's gun. And the level of damage done to the President strongly suggests we have a different type of bullet.

There appears to be another gunman.

Unfortunately, with Oswald taken out by presumably another lone and crazy gunman with Mafia connections, it makes it incredibly hard to find out what really happened. His death and subsequent blaming by the authorities on this one man seems too convenient. It is certainly not helped by the fact that Oswald had an association with Russia (i.e., a Russian citizen for two years with an interest in a particular social brand of communism in Cuba and not the hardline version used in Russia), and he wasn't exactly fitting into American life given his diverse views, especially among the more ring-wing patriotic hardliners living in Dallas, Texas. Yet his background and beliefs should not be held against him. In fact, he had strong support for Marxism views but denounced later after leaving Russia the type of communist regime it represented. He simply did not support it. Yet at the same time, he did not agree with all aspects of the American way of life either, mainly because of his concerns of how the rich were using the poor in a manner that wasn't to his liking. If there was any support for the American views, it was the fact that he preferred Kennedy's left-wing views.

George de Mohrenschildt, who befriended the Oswalds, claimed that Oswald:

"...was an admirer of President Kennedy.…I mentioned to him that…I thought that Kennedy was doing a very good job. … And he also agreed with me: ‘Yes, yes, yes; I think [he] is an excellent President, young, full of energy, full of good ideas."

Very interesting. Must make a reasonable person wonder what possible motive could there be for Oswald to kill the President? His views were too closely aligned to the President to warrant an assassination by this man. It does not make sense for Oswald to do this kind of horrific act. This is looking more like someone else had wanted this event to happen, and Oswald just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and was used as the scapegoat to cover for the actions and motives of other people. Or, it could be closer to the truth to say that certain American patriots already knew about Oswald and his support for Cuba and the Cuban leader Fidel Castro (this man's brand of communism was more aligned to Oswald's own personal view), not to mention the Marxist views he held (but interpreted by some Americans as a communist of the hardest form seen in Russia), and so have chosen to have him in the right place and time for others to achieve the dirty deed and later blame the man for the whole episode. Certainly Oswald was known to the CIA for quite some time and kept on file prior to the assassination taking place.

Whatever was going on between Oswald and the CIA, there is one thing that has got a lot of people wondering. The question on people's minds to this day is, Did the bullet that killed the president come from Oswald's rife?

This has to be of greatest concern in this whole matter: the mystery of the third bullet. The nature of this bullet is most intriguing. It is certainly not of the type fired from the rifle in the Book Depository room on the sixth floor of the library building. The way the third bullet behaved on impact with the President's skull is not in keeping with the other bullets, especially the type used in the rifle on the sixth floor of the library. Those bullets do not cause such extensive damage to the head as seen in the video of Kennedy getting killed. In fact, the bullets do not explode or split apart and suddenly expand outwards in all directions to cause maximum damage, which in the case of the president was a blowing apart of the front of the skull. Rather, the bullets stay intact and just crumple on impact and would only show small entry and exit holes. Furthermore, a professional Italian marksman could not achieve the accuracy at the distance the president was killed. Just to make it worse, Oswald was a mediocre gunman (22), not the expert marksman variety.

Whoever fired using Oswald's gun had no idea of how inaccurate the gun was. It makes one wonder why use a stupid old Italian rifle if the aim is to be accurate and kill the president. It does not make sense. First bullet had completed missed the car. Huh? Did he not test the rifle first and ensured it was accurate? Sounds like the person hadn't realised he should do this prior to arriving at the library. Or more likely the person was not aware of how inaccurate the gun was when it was pointed at the President. Perhaps a flash of light on the road may have helped to indicate to the mysterious gunman where it landed. So he used his skills to adjust for the inaccuracy. Although the gunman still could not kill the President, he was expert enough to hit the President in the neck. Very close, but not close enough.

If the Italians are right, then the gunman had no further opportunity to prepare, aim, and fire the third bullet. The target was too far away. If someone wanted the President dead, someone else had to do the job.

Here is a video to show from the vantage point of the first gunman on the sixth floor what he saw and where the president's car was when the bullets were fired.

However, we now learn from investigations by an Australian detective examining the case from a fresh new perspective of the existence of another gunman. And the nature of the weapon and type of bullets used by this other gunman does fit the observations of how much damage the third bullet had left behind on the president. Everything does come down to the unusual nature of the third bullet.

The third bullet is what has got a lot of people scratching their heads. It is the type of bullet that was fired on the president, the one that did the killing, that looks so strange. The third and final bullet was of a completely different type, and certainly not the same bullet fired from Oswald's gun. The amount of damage caused by this third bullet puts this into another class of sophistication and destruction.

So what do we know about this third bullet, and who fired it?

The most recent analysis conducted by a retired Australian police detective with experience in homicides has shown quite convincingly that Oswald could not have been the guy who achieved the ultimate destructive outcome with the president. This is further reinforced by the latest ballistic information, from accurate 3D re-creation of the Dallas street and motorcade, and the scanty information from poor quality x-ray images of the president's skull. Further details can be watched in NOVA's documentary Cold Case JFK. Oswald's position in the library building, if it was him who was shooting at the president, was not at the correct angle to kill the president based on the type of damage caused to the skull. Just to make it harder, Oswald was already struggling to get the precision and accuracy needed with his rifle to aim for Kennedy's head in such a short window of opportunity and distance away from the moving target. Even with an expert marksmen at the helm (a likely explanation for the whole event), even he had no idea the inaccurate nature of the weapon he was using and even aiming for a second time was not able to achieve the dreadful aim. And it would appear the decision to fire a third bullet from the library was a no goer. It was too far and inaccurate even for the most expert marksman on the planet. It would have to be a lot of luck required from the gunsman to even attempt it. But as it turned out, the person on the sixth floor gave up. He couldn't do the job. If Oswald somehow could have fired the fatal shot (it is looking improbable so far), it would be more of a "magic bullet" to reach the president. Because in this circumstance, the bullet had to turn in mid-air just behind the skull, maintain speed, enter the skull, and then, by some inexplicable reason, the bullet had to explode quite dramatically to cause the level of damage seen in the official video. Basically, we are talking about an impossibility. The bullet that ultimately killed Kennedy came from someone else, located in a different place, and was of a special type designed to explode and destroy whole organs in the body as a means of ensuring instant death. In the case of Kennedy, much of his brain had been totally destroyed, and the explosion caused a significant amount of the skull over one side (that is, to his right and front side) to be blown out. Also, the angle of this final fatal bullet came from a sufficiently different direction, too difficult to achieve from Oswald's position. Fortunately, the retired Australian ex-police detective was more rational about it, and looked for a sensible and reasonable solution. The work he did of carefully analysing the scene and available evidence is now pointing quite clearly to one of the bodyguards in the vehicle behind Kennedy's car. Furthermore, whether by sheer coincidence or not, it has been revealed that only one bodyguard had the high-powered weapon with the right bullets to do it, and was in the right direction as well. What a coincidence? Does this mean we have the answer?

If it is true, why was it necessary for this bodyguard to carry this type of weapon? Everyone else in the secret service who were meant to be there to protect Kennedy were issued with standard weapons with bullets that would not cause the level of damage seen of the president (more designed to wound or create a clean kill and hence a simpler entry and exit wounds). However, without video evidence to show the bodyguard actually firing on the president (apart from the smell of gunpowder noted by some witnesses in the crowd nearest the vehicle where the bodyguard had been riding in) and with no one actually being able to see exactly who it was in the vehicle (as the other two bodyguards in the car on either side had stood up at the right time and covered for the guy with the special rifle, and there were two other agents sitting behind the gunman), the confusion among the public of what happened and being more concerned about the president's well-being had effectively avoided the bodyguard from ever being singled out by anyone in the public as being responsible for Kennedy's death. And to make sure of it, one bodyguard in the car behind Kennedy's vehicle ran forward to assist the president and so ensured people were watching him and the president. This effectively directed the gaze of the public elsewhere (if they had not hit the ground and looked away in fear).

We see all the secret agents in the car behind the president in this photo, with the actual person who fired the fatal shot and flanked on all sides by agents now seated in the back and middle position:

Photograph shows secret service agents/bodyguards in the car behind the president soon after the third bullet was fired. The second gunman has at this time sat down and the rifle hidden from sight. Other bodyguards continue to perform their duty (looking elsewhere as if oblivious to the agent who fired the weapon) as a barrier for the public not to see who fired the fatal shot. The only thing the bodyguards could not hide was the smell of gunpowder as noted by a number of witnesses closest to the vehicle carrying the agents.

As the retired secret service agent Clint Hill said to NOVA:

"I was on the left running board of the follow up car immediately behind the presidential vehicle. All of a sudden I heard an explosive noise over my right shoulder, and I saw the president grab at his throat and I knew something was wrong. I jumped off the running board of the follow up car and ran towards the presidential vehicle. As I was running, they tell me there was another shot — I didn't hear it. Just as I was approaching the president's car, there was a third shot. It hit the president in the head, and then it exploded out to the right side of his head. Blood and brain matter and bone fragments sprayed out across the people in the car, across the trunk and myself, and Mrs Kennedy. Pulled myself up to the rear of the car and Mrs Kennedy came out on the trunk. She didn't even know I was there. She wasn't reaching for me. She was reaching for something that came off the president's head I grabbed her and put her in the back seat and I screamed to the driver to get us to the hospital."

Clint Hill is shown here in the vehicle behind President Kennedy's vehicle.

And all the while, the secret service agents kept quiet about the shooting. Even after realising what had happened, no one wanted to say a thing. Clearly they all must have heard the gunshot at close range. They must surely be able to smell the gunpowder. The two men on either side of the shooter must have noticed the rifle going off and saw the aftermath. And even after it all happened, the shooter was still carrying out his duties as usual, this time to protect the new president who would take over the leadership position. It was almost like a job well done. Not even a sign from the shooter that he had remorse or guilt for "accidentally" firing and hitting the president. Surely he must have known he had pulled the trigger, accidentally or otherwise. Yet there is no testimony from the secret service agents to claim that the shooter was prepared to step down from his position and hand over the gun to someone else, let alone whether any one of them had accidentally fired their weapon on the president (assuming it was accidental).

It made for a remarkably well-conceived and planned effort by someone or a group of individuals to kill President Kennedy.

Suffice to say, all this is leading us to suspect that a second weapon was used in the shooting, and thus a second shooter.

Yet the American authorities remained unconvinced. Still, to do day, the authorities prefer to see Oswald as the sole shooter and person who killed the President.

Now really?

Just to add to the strange nature of this event, not even the couple of witnesses who allegedly saw two men come up to policemen Tippet and shot him dead could confirm that it was definitely Oswald. Yet a person of similar body build was linked to Oswald and the authorities have took this to mean that it must have been Oswald. Who else could it be? Father Christmas? The Easter Bunny? Nah, it must be Oswald. Well, if this view from the police is meant to be true, it would have to be one of the most amazing deductive skills ever applied to a murder case by the American police based entirely on body type. Unfortunately, today, the law courts wouldn't allow for such a conclusion to be made based on this kind of testimony from the witnesses unless other evidence existed.

At the time this second shooting took place, Oswald claimed he had heard about the Tippet shooting on the radio. Prior to this, his boss at the library where he began his first day at work told staff to leave early because of the shooting incident with the president. Oswald decided to keep away from the commotion on the streets and watch a movie. But he was picked up by police after a tip-off from a member of the public. Since then, every attempt by the authorities was made to pin all the shootings on this one man.

Even the FBI-backed Warren Commission went to extraordinary lengths to establish that all the bullets came from this one rifle, and Oswald had to be the man responsible for the policeman's death given how similar he looked to witnesses testimony (but no one could confirm it was definitely him). Noting Oswald's fingerprint was on the gun used to fire on the president, for some reason, this made the case rather damning against Oswald unless he could find an alibi to support where he was when the policeman was shot, and a very good explanation of how his fingerprint got onto the rifle and whether he had brought the gun into the library. Not unless we believe in the supernatural and he could speak from the grave in his own words, it would appear that this is one aspect we will never quite know the truth. Yet it is amazing that the Commission went to considerable efforts to avoid implicating anyone else. It had to be this one man and no one else. Together with knowledge that Oswald did own a similar (if not the same) rifle, and may have been used in the past in a failed attempt to kill Major-General Walker, a man with strong right-wing views, at close range outside his home (but missed, and that was for a non-moving target since Walker was sitting in his chair at his desk at the time when he heard the shot and saw the bullet get lodged in a wall), the simplest solution was to point the finger at Oswald as the only person capable of this crime. End of story.

Again it just seems too convenient.

Or would it be closer to the truth to say that President Kennedy was killed by someone else and everything was made to look like it was Oswald as the sole shooter (even right down to stealing his rifle from the shed in his home and placing it in the library), only to be later taken out by the CIA rather conveniently with the help of the Mafia to avoid sensitive UFO information getting through to the public?

Or should we accept the view that it was the crazy antics of a lone gunman and Cuban sympathesizer as the CIA and FBI-backed Warren Commission on the assassination in September 1964 wanted to conclude?

For more than 70 years, serious questions remained unanswered while the majority of the American people expressed considerable skepticism of the "one gunman" theory. For example, witnesses reported seeing an unidentified man in the crowd opening up the only black umbrella on a sunny, hot day and holding it high above his head as the president was going past him. He then decided to move the umbrella in a clockwise motion (even though the president would not have seen it) and immediately the bullets started firing. Once it stopped and the president was slumped in his car, the man closed the umbrella, sat done on the kerb for a few minutes, got up and walked to the library. A strange act to be seeing of anyone. Furthermore, how the bullets hitting the President seem to come from two different directions (there was a puff of smoke from behind a fence on top of a knoll more in front of the president's car which confused some witnesses into thinking someone was firing on the president from this direction; or was it more the fact that someone was using cigarettes to create smoke to help add to the confusion for the public?). Of course, how can we forget the missing autopsy report, not to mention what happened to the photographs and actual brain samples from the President's head. All these observations helped to add fuel to the fire of a grand conspiracy. Whether or not Oswald was one of the gunman, there was definitely someone else involved in the killing of the president. Whoever this other gunman was, it would appear to be an individual who is not willing to come forth to claim responsibility even if in the slightest possibility it could have been an accident. The hush hush nature of this event, even despite most of the American public being convinced it had to be someone else, is extraordinary. It is looking like the president really did have to be taken out by someone with a grudge against the leader. (23)

So, how likely is it that Oswald was one of the gunmen, if not THE gunman?

There is a photograph showing what appears to be Oswald standing outside the library watching the president go by in his car (with a couple of secret service agents looking in his direction).

The photograph taken by James W. (Ike) Aligens

This is the picture that also shows Kennedy holding his throat as his wife Jackie turns to him and reaches around with her left arm to support Kennedy's left arm, as can be seen in these two pictures:

Best available picture of the scene inside the president's car. It is clear the president had already been shot and received an injury from the second bullet.
Best available picture of the scene inside the president's car. It is clear the president had already been shot and received an injury from the second bullet.

Here are the best close up picture in raw and original form of the people congregating around the library entrance, including the mystery man:

A close up of the important area.
The best non-digitally enhanced close-up region.

To get a better sense of the people's positions and stance they took when the above photograph was taken, volunteers have helped to re-create this photograph outside the library:

Volunteers show the positions and stances of those who worked in the library in 1963 as they stood to watch the motorcade precession when the original photograph was taken.

Looking at the original photograph (23), we see the clothing worn of the mystery man appears to be a jacket or shirt with a V-front design. Nolan Billy Lovelady was outside the library at the time the picture was taken. He claimed he had a shirt unbuttoned in a manner that looks somewhat V-shaped on the front. When asked in 1971 to wear the clothes he wore on the day, this is what he claimed he looked like:

The photograph taken by James W. (Ike) Aligens

There are some notable differences in his shirt, especially in the design of the neck collar region when compared to the mystery man's jacket/shirt and the actual clothing worn by Oswald when he was arrested.

Here is the best comparison images of the mystery man's clothing for comparison with Oswald's official clothing with jacket on:

Note the design of the neck collar region. The mystery man fits that of Oswald's official jacket that he wore.

Here, the collar design is wide around much of the back and side of neck, but suddenly comes in deeply, then V-shapes out slightly and slowly merges in line with the jacket across the chest. You do not see this in Lovelady's shirt. There is a noticeable difference even despite the pictures not being perfectly sharp. Another thing to find a bit odd is how some witnesses claimed Lovelady's shirt was done up differently while working in the library, whereas in the photo in 1971, Lovelady was happy to give the impression of how he believed he looked with the buttons on the shirt undone towards the top to create the V-shaped appearance. Not exactly dressed for work. While Oswald and many others took pride in their appearance, Lovelady was looking rather scruffy for the V-shaped look. Perhaps his work entailed more labour-intensive activities that required casual clothing and a more laid back look?

Also notice how the white T-shirt underneath for each of the men shows a slightly more prominent V-shaped neck design for Oswald compared to Lovelady's white T-shirt. We see this more clearly with these photographs of Oswald and the mystery man. Compare these pictures with Lovelady's T-shirt design:

T-shirt around the neck seems to show a more prominent V-shape design for Oswald and the mystery man.

There is also something else a bit odd about the mystery man. His face looks not quite like Oswald. It appears to be in the hair region when seen close up. To see this more clearly, here is the best digitally-enhanced image of the mystery man:

Hairline of mystery man is remarkably the same to the photo of Lovelady taken in 1957.

Notice the way the hairline is shaped and combed. It looks way too similar given a difference of 6 years for a man that was known to be balding quickly. It is unlikely Lovelady had his hair looking the same after 6 years.

Here we see signs of a conscientious effort by some unnamed person(s) to modify the picture in a professional manner to make the mystery man look more like Lovelady rather than Oswald and had it re-photographed. In that way, Oswald cannot be seen as being among the people watching on as Kennedy was being shot. There is even a possibility that the whole face of the mystery man could have been modified to look like Lovelady as this example shows:

A suggested method of tampering that could allow an innocent man to be found guilty.

Makes one wonder just how much tampering has occurred to the photograph to ensure Oswald would be blamed for the whole mess? In conclusion regarding the photographic evidence available at hand in its current form, Professor James Fetzer's stated in his book titled Murder in Dealey Plaza:

"A man many people think strongly resembles Lee Harvey Oswald is pictured standing in the front entrance of the Book Depository Building. If it is, in fact, Oswald, he could not have been on the sixth floor of the building when the shots were fired. The Warren Commission will discount any possibility that the figure is Oswald, and instead identifies the man as Billy Nolan Lovelady, another building employee. The man in the photo is wearing a dark, heavy-textured shirt open halfway to the waist over a white undershirt. Lovelady later tells reporters that he was wearing a red-and-white-striped sport shirt that day. The identity of the man in the photo has never been clearly established. (pp. 34-35)

So what is left for Oswald to support his case? Surely it must be the eyewitness accounts of those who were outside the library, right? In which case, could anyone vouch for Oswald being outside the library? And how reliable are these statements?

There was a witness, an employee of the library, who did report to the authorities that he had encouraged Oswald to come outside to watch, which it seems he did based on Oswald's testimony. Oswald remembered the name of the person who asked him thereby corroborating on the witness seeing Oswald.

As Mr Oswald stated to police, he saw, and allegedly was with, Bill (William H.) Shelley outside the door. Shelley was observed, as Mr Oswald had claimed, by another man named Billy Nolan Lovelady. Strangely, neither Mr Oswald nor Mr Lovelady could confirm whether either of them were present outside the library. Either Oswald was outside for a very brief moment or something was obstructing Lovelady's view of Oswald. Or was Lovelady too fixated on watching the spectacle not to notice? Or could there have been some animosity between the two men because of their different views, or a willingness by Lovelady to take revenge on Oswald for what he thought had happened to the president and did not want to confirm Oswald was outside? Or there is the possibility that someone asked Lovelady after the fact to overlook any memory he had of having seen Oswald. One can never be sure about this. One thing is certain. There was plenty of time for the witnesses to think about what they wanted to say in their testimony to the Warren Commission. A pity considering it should have been the job of the Texas police to gather the testimony immediately after the shooting from all the witnesses, despite how many there were. A big job, but it had to be done. Or given the fact that everyone wants to blame Oswald, why not focus the investigation on the witnesses who worked in the library. Start there at the very least and work outwards. A much easier task surely.

In the case of Oswald who was interviewed very early in the piece (a rarity it seems for the Texas police), he noted Shelley was outside but did not mention any other employee. Is this because working on the first day in the library was not conducive to remembering or being aware of all the people working in the same building? Maybe it took a while for Oswald to become familiar and recognise the faces of all his workers. Only Bill Shelley, who was happy to speak to him and encouraged Oswald to come out to have a look, was the one that had the strongest imprint on his mind.

It should be noted that Oswald had only just started working in the library that morning. One would imagine it might take a little time to familiarise himself with each person working in the library.

Mr Will Fritz of the Dallas Police Department wrote in his notes during his interview with Mr Oswald that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front" (see this link) of the library building watching the president going by. The Fritz notes does exist and were not mentioned by the Warren Commission. In fact, the notes were hidden from the public until 1997.

Yet again another crucial piece of evidence gets conveniently removed or hidden. No one really wanted to hear the side of Oswald of what happened.

This is an important piece of evidence. Oswald obviously knew that one man was outside. This must support his claim of being outside. How else could he possible have known that? No indications anyone had told him about this. As for why Oswald and Lovelady had not seen each other, it is quite possible Oswald was not familiar with Lovelady as an employee of the library because he had not been working in the building for very long to be introduced to him and all the other employees. Likewise Lovelady could have been completely unaware of Oswald and who he was (perhaps he arrived slightly late to work), never mind if he was an employee in the library. Yet somehow Oswald knew Shelley was present outside because he spoke to him, and now he said to the police he was outside. So where is he in the photograph? Must be the mystery man looking around the wall, even if his face looks a bit odd.

Most intriguing.

This may be crucial evidence.

On closer examination of the photos, we see four people near the entrance to the library. Apart from the mystery man looking around the edge of the wall with his interesting clothing and body build highly reminiscent of Oswald, we see another person to the left of the mystery man and somewhat behind with two arms held up to cover the person's face from the sun in an attempt to get a better look. He was Buell Lesley Frazier. Then there is a third man just in front of this person, lower down. Part of his head starts to show, but is covered (and without a clear picture showing the details of an arm covering part of the head, it might be interpreted as his face had been cut out), He appears to be standing a couple of rungs down the stairs. It has been determined that this was Lovelady. According to his testimony, he intended to sit down and have lunch with Sarah Stanton until the word came through that the president had been shot and then the lunch part was cancelled. Immediately after, Lovelady and Shelley were busy trying to get a vantage point across the road to see what had happened to the president.

There is another man behind the mystery man. This has been determined to be Shelley. In which case, he should have been able to identify Oswald if he was outside. Interestingly, Shelley's testimony provided to the Office of the U.S. Attorney at 4:10 p.m., on April 7, 1964 (which gave a lot of time for Shelley to think about things, talk with others, and decide how he would respond) indicates that he found Oswald was not very talkative, but had spoken to him on various work-related matters (mainly to direct Oswald on what to do). Other than that, there is no obvious indications he was aware Oswald was outside.

As for the testimony of the others who were outside, here is a summary of what was said:

With things looking a bit shaky to support Oswald's claim of being outside (unless a number of the witnesses were choosing to be forgetful and blame Mr Oswald for everything), we can only go by what Oswald did next. Hopefully there would be another witness to support any further claims.

Not being of the talkative type as Shelley has admitted in his testimony, and being Oswald's first day at work (understandable), Oswald made the decision to walk back inside to have his lunch. He was oblivious to the fact that the president had been injured and that a third bullet was about to be fired on the president (and that was the time when people would frantically and in shock mention to each other of the president being shot).

If the photograph showing what appears to be a man wearing remarkably similar clothing to Oswald is in fact Oswald, then how long did Oswald stay outside? Long enough until Oswald saw the president moving away (and apparently already shot in the shoulder and neck region) and decided he would walk back inside the building on his own, still oblivious to what actually happened. People were not expecting the president to be shot and still couldn't tell even when the wife of the president was moving over to support the president in his hour of need and help. Just as he was going upstairs to the first floor, the third and fatal shot was made. No other staff member outside saw Oswald walk back in, let alone whether they all recognised him as a new employee standing outside (or more likely, given the attitude of American citizens at the time of a man accused of any wrongdoing, if the authorities find Oswald's fingerprint on the gun, it must have been Oswald who did it, so maybe the testimony from some witnesses would show some deliberate forgetfulness and even needing to pin it on the man given such seemingly strong evidence against him).

To make it doubly worse for Oswald, there was no one on the first floor to support his claim to the police that he was working on that level and having lunch when it all happened. And all the while we have various other people who were prepared to call Oswald a liar simply because his fingerprint was found on the rifle on the sixth floor. No other evidence could be found to help Oswald in his case.

But there is another problem for the American authorities in framing Oswald. It concerns the time needed to climb up an additional five floors to get to the sixth floor and get prepared to fire the third bullet. As Oswald claimed, he began to walk up to the first floor. Looking at how far the President was going down the road (and the photograph shows quite clearly that he was already hit by the second bullet when his wife came over to him to assist), the third bullet was fired. For this to be true and for Oswald to be responsible, he had to run very hard to get to the sixth floor. Kind of like superhuman strength. By the time he got there, he would have been puffing and breathing very hard. Not an ideal situation to be in if the aim is to fire on a president at some distance. He somehow had to calm his breathing (more time wasted here), find the gun, get into position to rest his elbow or arm on the window sill, take another deep breath, and hope to hell he can hit the President. There is something about this part that seems unlikely for Oswald.

Yet the question still remains: Did Oswald stand outside the front door of the library looking at the motorcade for a brief moment? Only he can say with any reasonable certainty. He believes he was outside based on his testimony and acknowledgement of seeing Mr Shelley. Unfortunately Oswald is dead. How convenient the poor man was taken out at the earliest opportunity to prevent him from stating his case.

Apart from all of that, we see that Oswald was meant to be working in the library. Roy Truly, told the Warren Commission that Oswald was an employee. Truly had the option to assign Oswald to one of two buildings on his first day at work. "I might have sent Oswald to work [there]....Oswald and another fellow reported for work on the same day [October 15] and I needed one of them for the depository building. I picked Oswald."

Interesting to see it was Oswald's first day at work. This would explain so much. A lot of the staff members at the time were probably unfamiliar with a new employee. Combined with such focus on the president's motorcade, it must have made for a difficult time to prove a lot of Mr Oswald's claims, let alone who was present and where. Only Shelley could have shed some light and confirm what happened. Unfortunately his testimony starts to get unreliable as if he too has decided that Oswald had to be the guilty man. In the case of Mr Lovelock, he claimed not to have noticed Oswald. Or maybe he hadn't met the guy to know who he was; and he, like the other staff members, was too preoccupied with watching the president to really know all the people who were standing around.

If all this is true, a number of people have gone to a remarkable effort to blame Oswald for the president's death all because of a fingerprint found on a rifle resembling very much like the one Oswald owned (and probably was his rifle). Yet no one ever considered the possibility that Oswald could have been innocent and another person was likely involved and trying to frame the poor young man for the murder. This other person could have easily stolen his rifle to commit the atrocious act.

It is amazing.

So who really killed the president? And could the gunman who delivered the fatal blow be linked back to the CIA?

Indeed, could it be the CIA in the end that started this whole mess?

All we know is that the CIA has used the Mafia in the past to do its dirty work. For example, the CIA has hired the Mafia (two men) and several Cuban exiles in America in a failed attempt on 17 April 1961 to kill Cuban leader Fidel Castro during the "Bay of Pigs" fiascoe. So any involvement by the Mafia in stopping Oswald from revealing evidence to the media or the independent commission if paid enough money or other rewards could be linked back to the CIA.

And certainly the CIA would have the motive to take out Kennedy after his revealing memo on UFOs.

Perhaps we may never know.

Whatever really happened, we do know there is still a considerable effort to this day by the top echelons of the U.S. spy agencies and the military community (in particular the U.S. Air Force) to maintain UFO secrecy at all costs. Initially the excuse was to avoid public panic. Today, it is more to do with maintaining power and staying rich under the current economic system so long as other people are made to believe all UFOs are IFOs or to at least get people to be preoccupied in areas that would force them to maintain the current economic system and not be aware of the true UFO situation. As for American Christians wondering about all of this, the CIA is willing to paint a demonic picture on the UFO phenomenon to help convince these simple-minded religious folks to believe UFOs are not worthy of discussion.

For example, Charles Upton, a retired high ranking military attaché with CIA connections, wrote an article in the New York Times in April 2011 talking about the similarities of UFOs and the demons described in religious folklore. As Upton said:

"The UFO phenomenon has three separate yet related aspects:

  1. ) It produces real material-world events, detectable by radar and sometimes leaving behind physical traces;
  2. ) It is a psychic phenomenon that profoundly alters the consciousness of those exposed to it;
  3. ) It is apparently surrounded by deception activities which mimic it, produced by human groups. We tend to consider these elements as mutually exclusive, but they’re not; all three are explainable by demonic activity and invocation.

Demons are subtle beings who can temporarily materialize themselves and various objects in this world, but who cannot remain on our material plane for very long.

And the deception activities of human groups, besides being attempts to piggyback on a phenomenon that the deceivers didn’t originate and can’t control, may be designed not simply to imitate the "aliens" to influence mass belief, but to actually invoke them.

This suggests the possibility that elements of the intelligence community and various arcane technologists are involved in Satanism." (Upton, Charles. "The UFO Phenomenon and Demonic Activity": New York Times. April 2011, p.1. What is shown here is an abridgement of this article that Upton published on 29 December 2011 titled "UFOs, Mass Mind-Control, and the Awliya al-Shaytan". Full details of his "UFO-Satanic connection" theory can be found in his book Cracks in the Great Wall: UFOs and Traditional Metaphysics published in 2005.)

To give further support to his theory, Upton obtains support from Father Seraphim Rose. As he wrote:

"Father Seraphim Rose, in Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future, citing many of the Eastern Orthodox saints and the Greek Fathers, draws many exact parallels between the UFO phenomenon and the experiences of the early Christian saints with the demonic powers.

I believe that the powers that be are playing a game of both debunking the reality of UFOs and covertly planting evidence of their reality as a method of mass mind-control, using a technique I call "subliminal contradiction."

Yet little do ordinary religious folks know, the CIA are experts in psychological warfare techniques if it means getting people to support a preferred position and maintain the status quo and the UFO secrecy. Furthermore, the common observation that UFOs can appear and disappear (and in some cases in a cyclic manner) can be explained as the result of an intense oscillating electromagnetic field, which under Einstein's Unified Field Theory, generates a strong gravitational field. This in turn is what helps light to bend, thereby allowing an observer to see what is behind the object. The fading out of view and re-appearing would simply be the result of the way that the field oscillates. As soon as the field drops to zero, the gravitational field is not strong enough (it must also drop to zero), so the object appears to the naked eye. Increase the field to its maximum amplitude and the gravitational field will also be at its maximum, and that is when the object can be rendered invisible. Definitely no need to link the invisibility observation to demonic creatures from another dimension. Basic scientific concepts have the power to explain the same observation with no trouble at all.

Still, the CIA is willing to take the chance that the public is stupid and will never know the truth. The electromagnetic concepts behind UFOs are presumably too hard to figure out for ordinary folks (well, alien technology must be too difficult to reverse-engineer, so why bother studying UFOs?), and scientists are made to believe there is nothing to study in UFOs given how incredible the observations of UFOs appear to be and all the fake UFO documents and dead alien photographs that have come and gone (apparently linked to the U.S. government by anonymous individuals).

Combine this with the Condon UFO Report of 1969, done in a manner that was not properly balanced and certainly not aimed at focusing on the electromagnetic side-effects displayed by genuine symmetrical-shaped UFOs (the person who headed the study, Dr Edward Condon, was a nuclear physicist, not an electromagnetic expert with knowledge of advanced electromagnetic concepts, such as the Abraham-Lorentz formula for describing the radiation reaction force, and Einstein's Unified Field Theory linking the gravitational field with the electromagnetic field), and the CIA must feel overly confident it has the scientific community stitched up "in the bag" so to speak. The scientists cannot see any advancement to science from the study of UFOs. UFOs must be hogwash, so let's keep it that way. So while the scientists remain ignorant of the reality and not willing to challenge the status quo on this matter, it seems like just about everyone is in the palm of the CIA's hands, completely ignorant of the true situation regarding UFOs.

Yet despite the tough exterior and efforts to hide the UFO evidence by the CIA, as well as methods of deceiving the public on the UFO phenomenon through carefully crafted newspaper articles, false UFO documents released by individuals currently still working for, or have retired from, the government and military, or individuals who claimed to have been contracted to work in Area 51 and seen UFOs being reversed engineered, there are enough cracks in the U.S. policy of extreme UFO secrecy to get people asking some serious questions. For example, we find evidence in the old metallurgical journals of how the USAF was involved in nitinol research between 1948-49 and showed interest in other titanium-based shape memory alloys (with properties corresponding remarkably well to observations of the shape memory metal foil seen by witnesses near Roswell in July 1947). We see this interest from the military scientists at the Battelle Memorial Institute in Ohio tasked with analyzing the Roswell materials, which raises serious questions as to how the military created the alloy in 1947 at a time when the technology for making pure titanium in adequate quantities to reveal this property was not available to help explain the witnesses' observations. Then information in the New York Tribune emerges of an interest in the mid-1950s by the USAF and the U.S. government to study Einstein's Unified Field Theory and look more closely at new theories for gravity and universal gravitation, followed by a scientific article mentioning the interest of the USAF in looking at the radiation reaction force by the start of the 1960s. Another serious crack would occur after 1975 when citizens against UFO secrecy successfully forced the U.S. government to release a few thousand pages of UFO information from the CIA and other clandestine agencies (as well as the U.S. military) under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act (FoIA). At first the existence of these documents were denied, and later (when the public learned there were documents kept) it was claimed the documents would have serious impact on national security. While many thousands of pages still remain hidden, what we do have is very interesting. There was considerable interest in UFOs by certain people in the military and the CIA among other clandestine agencies since 1947. And some of those documents would mention at least one crashed disk in New Mexico. To this day, the U.S. government has continued to maintain its national security argument for all remaining hidden UFO documents. And if that is not enough, in 2017 the CIA has gone one step further by claiming that some UFOs are probably top-secret military IFOs in an attempt to convince people why UFOs have to be kept secret to this day.

Then, in December 1980, the military tested a diamond-shaped glowing UFO in Texas (and later escorted by various black military helicopters), but not without leaving behind on three witnesses various levels of radiation poisoning.

Given the latest scientific knowledge of radiation propulsion from a charged surface, the new theory of how radiation interacts with solid matter, and how feasible it is to build this electromagnetic technology and show the mathematics behind the type of dramatic acceleration that occurs, we think the CIA should have another re-think of its position on UFOs, and its secrecy stance on the matter. Things are about to get tricky for the organisation, and soon someone is going to put a blow torth up the ass of the CIA to to heat things up and put pressure on the organisation to come clean on what it knows. It is not going to be quite as simple as pretending not to know, or to hide behind the veil of secrecy. It won't work anymore.

Not even sanctioning the records of Project Blue Book (which closed down in 1969) for public scrutiny in response to the FoI release of UFO documents in the mid-1970s was enough to convince the public that UFOs are IFOs. Forget it. The public knows too much. It is understood that this military study was seriously skewed to support a natural or man-made explanation after the retirement of Captain Edward J. Ruppelt (the man who started the project and was the right person for the job because he was more curious and willing to do a more balanced investigation of which he did find more and more unusual electromagnetic cases emerging from the UFO reports). It was done to avoid anyone noticing the genuine electromagnetic UFO cases emerging from the reports, and instead get the public to focus on finding quick natural or man-made explanations for all UFOs. The aim was clear given the sensitivity of the UFO situation for certain people. The public had to see UFOs as nothing unusual, and certainly not alien. That is the only way to maintain secrecy.

If that was not enough, someone in the government and military would secretly release anonymous and dubious U.S. UFO government documents, such as the Majestic 12 document, photographs and films of dead aliens, and fake employees from Area 51, to help keep UFO investigators and researchers busy and away from critical areas of research while ensuring the scientific community would never be open-minded enough to study the subject when they see what is going on.

But then again, the people supplying the disinformation could easily over do it. The more talk there is of crashed disks and alien bodies, the more likely people will start to think that perhaps all the continuing rumours in this area might actually be true. Probably best not to mention them at all if one is in the business of maintaining secrets.

In the meantime, certain well-paid individuals in the United States either directly involved in the big secret or others who don't know about the secret but are willing to do as they were told for enough money would infiltrate key positions of power in the U.S. military, secret intelligence and a few civilian organisations (and politically through the U.S. Administration in more recent times). These individuals would wield enormous power on the local, national and international scene by promoting many strong L-brain (i.e. R-wing) ideas needed to keep the big secret going for as long as is possible and keep others away from the subject.

Among the attempts to stop the public and the rest of the world from learning the great truth include:

  1. debunking UFOs at every turn;
  2. getting the skeptical scientific community to support the idea that there is nothing to be advanced from the study of UFOs;
  3. paying government scientists in the 1950s to support a way of life that is unhealthy (e.g. mainly to eat more carbohydrates to supposedly reduce fat and make us more healthy, when in fact there is no real scientific basis to support this idea and could well be making us more fatter and unhealthier), making people as lazy and uneducated as possible and/or too busy making money and, therefore, not curious enough to learn new ideas, while influencing as many people to participate in mainstream "uncreative" and low-paying L-brain jobs considered generally "safe" in the eyes of the U.S. military (e.g. join the Army or support the current economy in low-income jobs). (25)
  4. Anyone else who is approaching to truth on the UFO scene are likely to get identified and employed in more pragmatic areas, or else removed by other means.

These things would occur especially during the creative public period when people considered the possibility of ETs existing somewhere in the universe (including the scientific efforts to find the evidence through SETI after the late 1960s). Later, these R-wing and more pragmatic ideas would get accelerated after 1980 with the help of the U.S. government and with subtle influence from the U.S. military and intelligence organisations. This would coincide at a time when further information about the Roswell incident emerged in Charles Berlitz and William Moore's book, The Roswell Incident. The quotes from remaining military and civilian witnesses who saw the original Roswell materials revealed a remarkably powerful and tough shape-memory alloy made with titanium at a time when the metal's purity needed to reveal this property was not there to produce it. More of a reason to keep people preoccupied yet again with other issues, this time on the war on terrorism (and in 2018 the potential for a second Cold War with Russia, and eventually China and North Korea). All simple approaches to help stop the truth from coming out.

Other world leaders, on seeing this at a superficial level (with focus on the preferred views from the U.S. government), would merely follow the United States lead in order to maintain their place and relevance on the world stage, enjoy the benefits of maintaining the status quo through trade with the United States and the current economic system, and so be seen as though they are "part of the global team" (i.e. non-terrorists).

We are certainly not a creative bunch today to see through the U.S. military and intelligence aims.

All this will certainly have to change later in the 21st century.

25 October 2017

During a time when the U.S. President Donald Trump was under investigations for alleged contacts with Russian leader Vladimir Putin and links to Russian interference in the last U.S. elections, the president decided in the interest of openness and showing he has nothing to hide to order the CIA to release files it has kept in relation to the assassination of former president John F. Kennedy. Either that or whatever the CIA already has on Trump would be kept secret if Trump does the right thing of "not rocking the boat". Initially Trump wanted to release all the files. However, someone with close connections to the CIA has convinced Trump to be somewhat circumspect about what can be released. It looks like certain CIA files on the event remain too sensitive for the public to know about.

So, on Friday 27 October 2017, the CIA gathered 3,000 files and sent them for "release", of which only 2,800 were actually handed over. As a further measure of the sensitivity of the matter to the CIA, heavy redaction of the information can be seen. The decision to be heavy handed with with black texter will only fuel the public controversy surrounding Kennedy's death.

Examination of the files generally try to paint Lee-Harvey Oswald as the prime suspect, together with various reasons why it may have happened. For example, we see in some documents a link between the Soviets and Oswald. In one CIA memo, we learn a KGB defector was aware of this link. It was clear Oswald had lived in Russia a decade earlier, and just 6 days before Kennedy's assassination he visited the Cuban and Soviet embassies in Mexico City (mainly to live in Cuba). The KGB defector further added that the Soviet spies were unaware of Oswald and what he was up to. Yet Oswald's association with Russia at one time was enough to make the defector think he may have been "an agent of the KGB" or at the very least cause significant problems for the Kremlin if the U.S. decided the assassination came from Russia and retaliated by hitting targets in Russia (and potentially start a new world war).

In another document we learn that the Russians thought Oswald was a "neurotic maniac" to the point where they did not want to get involved with him.

However, following the event that took place with the death of John F. Kennedy, the Russians learned about Oswald and became more concerned about the U.S. starting a third world war against the communist country should the link between Oswald and Russia be made. Just like the Cuban missile crisis where the Russians stepped back from the brink of nuclear war, Russian officials were afraid of the likely repercussions should this information get out into the open. Interestingly, certain information did come out and was kept by the CIA but never released even when the Warren Commission into Kennedy's death was taking place. Apparently the documents were being gathered secretly and stored for a long time to probably help protect the CIA at some point in the future should enough evidence be found to implicate the agency in the assassination. Better for the CIA to keep people preoccupied with a host of other explanations and conspiracy theories, but not he one that is closest to the truth.

At any rate, thanks to this Russian connection, a whole new conspiracy theory has emerged to implicate Russia and so keep the American public busy for many more years as they continue to wonder who really killed Kennedy.

As far as the reasons for the assassination are concerned, the documents indicate that there are many and varied. Strangely not one document ever tries to question the CIA in the matter, let alone anything to do with UFOs. Perhaps not surprising, Seriously, why would any document kept by the CIA try to implicate itself in Kennedy's death? It would not be in the interest of the CIA to do so. It is far better to give the perception that the CIA is the good guy trying to protect American citizens and presumably had no idea what happened on that summer day in Dallas, Texas..

Interesting to see how UFOs are not recorded in the CIA files (well, certainly not in the documents currently released to the public). Quite a remarkable discovery in itself. Clearly UFOs would have to be part of the range of conspiracy theories and possible explanation for the killing for the CIA to consider. One would think that such a possibility would have been kept in the agency's files at the very least in relation to the event of 1963 given its efforts to retain every conceivable conspiracy theory of what might have happened and why. Well, one would think so assuming, of course, the CIA is in the business of being balanced in gathering all the conspiracy theories and explanations it has uncovered in relation to this extraordinary event. So why isn't UFOs among the files?

Perhaps there is a reason why the CIA does not want to retain this kind of information and have it released to the public? It may well be the fact that any talk of UFOs could be considered too close to the truth, especially if one is working for the CIA.

Okay. So, was it really Lee-Harvey Oswald who killed Kennedy? Not likely. The CIA, and now President Trump, would like to think so. Rather convenient for Trump given his own difficulties with claims of knowing about the Russian influence in the 2017 presidential elections, and it would get the CIA off the hook too (and avoid Trump being the next target for the CIA if he exercises his powers beyond what is expected of him in order to maintain the status quo). Unfortunately, too many flaws exist in the Lee-Harvey Oswald "one man" theory. Sure, he was present at the time of Kennedy's death. And a couple of bullets were fired from a rifle that appears to be his own (probably it was because of the fingerprint).

But was it Oswald who did the firing?

There is enough information and evidence to indicate that Oswald was probably not responsible, and certainly not the shooter who killed the President. Someone else did, and a number of people were involved to help cover up what really happened while trying to get everyone to focus on Oswald as the prime and only suspect, and therefore, had to be the gunman.

Even without the remaining 300 files not yet released by President Trump (and perhaps never will), there is already enough indirect evidence to show with a reasonable degree of certainty who it was that fired the fatal shot, and what really happened. Despite how the CIA files try to paint Oswald as the only man to have done it together with a myriad of possible reasons as to why he might have done it. With all the trouble gone to keep a list of possible reasons, why hasn't the CIA kept a document about this possibility (i.e., a bodyguard shooting at the president)? Or what about the UFO memo. There is a good reason there to take out the President if UFOs are actually real. Again the CIA's files on the matter remains woefully incomplete even with the decades that have passed by to do this job properly, almost as if the CIA had wanted it that way and instead try to convince the American public to think it had to be Oswald. Yet, on the whole, the public still remains unconvinced that it could be Oswald even though he does have some responsibility (assuming he did fire from the sixth floor of the library building). This is not so much about how or who probably killed the president as there is enough tantalising clues on this matter to reveal the truth (the public are confident someone else was responsible). Rather, this is more a case of why.

Why was Kennedy killed? What was so incredibly important that he had to be taken out? The bodyguard has kept quiet after all this time. Not a good look for him. Keep it quiet for any longer and it will look like a professional premeditated government-sponsored murder of the first degree. In which case, what could be so incredibly sensitive to whoever in the government that the president was doing at the time to warrant such extreme measures on the man? And did he really deserve it?

Today, we have tantalising clues as to why it happened. It is all stemming from that fateful memo recommending a release of UFO information. Knowing the sensitivity this kind of information is to the CIA and the U.S. military, one can reasonably surmise how it was possible to plan this whole assassination event in an attempt to maintain UFO secrecy at all costs. But then that would imply UFOs are real and not, as we are told by the USAF and the CIA, of familiar IFOs (mainly man-made objects and natural phenomenon), which would definitely be astonishing if it is true.

Is the assassination meant to be an admission from the CIA that UFOs are real and alien, and evidence has arrived in recent times to put the whole debate beyond a shadow of a doubt?

In the meantime, without definitive proof (such as a confession from the bodyguard who fired the fatal shot — the man is still alive but chooses to keep quiet, which can only make it worse for him and the CIA in the long run), it remains yet another interesting conspiracy theory to keep the public wondering. Until the true reason is given (and so far the CIA is doing all it can to avoid any responsibility), this final part of the question will remain an ongoing mystery.

Or maybe the thing that is closest to the truth is the one that the CIA chooses not to say anything or mention in any of its documents released so far. As UFOs are not among the documents, it may not be too far fetched to imagine a scenario involving UFOs as the cause for this tragic death.

One thing is certain. Any attempts by future American presidents to ask about the UFO situation will probably not quite face the same fate as President Kennedy. It would be too obvious. Instead, the aim would be to deny the existence of UFOs and any possible links to alien life at all costs, even if scientific observations of the universe are telling us life can and should exist on other planets beyond our solar system.

As an example of the latest preferred approach by the CIA to stop the inquisitive minds of an American president asking about the UFO question, Mr Gerald Ford expressed an interest in UFOs while he was the Republican House Minority Leader of Congress. He said in 1966:

"I strongly recommend that there be a committee investigation of the UFO phenomena. I think we owe it to the people to establish credibility regarding UFOs and to produce the greatest possible enlightenment on this subject."

His statement fell on deaf ears. When he did get into the White House and asked again, it suddenly became necessary for official U.S. authorities to show a flat out denial on any UFOs as possibly having any opportunity to advance science, let alone one that could represent something alien. Luckily for President Ford, he did not pursue it further. This preferred approach to denying UFOs at every step by those in the know is supported by UFO director of MUFON in New Jersey, Major George A. Filer III, when he wrote to Ford asking about his interest. Ford wrote back saying:

"During my public career while in Congress, as Vice President and as President he made various requests about UFOs. The official authorities always denied the UFO allegations. As a result I have no information that may be helpful to you."

It just goes to show how sensitive the whole UFO situation really has got in the United States. Something has clearly got up the proverbial nose of certain people in the know and in a bad way to the point where they are not willing to divulge their knowledge even to this day. Indeed, they prefer not to see any form of questioning of the UFO evidence (not even a word about "little green men") through a proper scientific inquiry (and something more balanced and open-minded than the Condon UFO study in 1969).

This ios the thing. President Ford, may have choosen wisely not to pursue the matter. Nor did he attempt any plans to force the CIA and the U.S. military to reveal UFO information and the Roswell case to the public in the way that President Kennedy was willing to do in his day, and so put his own life in danger. Kennedy was special in his own right. Too special, in fact. It turned out those in the know could not handle someone so curious and driven to get to the truth like Kennedy. Someone who was willing to rock the boat and shake up the military and government establishment for the sake of ending the Cold War with Russia and get to the bottom of the UFO mystery once and for all, especially if the military and the CIA knew something. For example, just ten days before Kennedy was assassinated and soon after he wrote his UFO memo, he spoke to an eager audience at Columbia University about his concerns of secrecy and the need for people to be more open-minded, free and independent to get to the truth. As Kennedy said (full speech available from here):

"The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and secret proceedings.

We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions.

Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment.

That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control.

And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence — on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day.

It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary.

I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers — I welcome it.

This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: 'An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it'. We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed-- and no republic can survive.

That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy.

And that is why our press was protected by the First (emphasized) Amendment — the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution-- not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants" — but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news — for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security...

And so it is to the printing press — to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news — that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent."

Now, at last, we can see how his revealing memo on UFOs was just one part of the big picture that Kennedy had planned for the public. It was his personal crusade — a kind of realisation of the Cold War with Russia and why it existed, and how important it was to share knowledge of even the most controversial areas with fellow human beings. He felt certain secrecy in certain areas of the government was stifling openness to the world and making the situation with Russia worse than it needed to be. He was looking to change this perception by showing to the world that his Administration and those who were suppose to support him and his aims were not hiding anything important from Russia and the rest of the world. Being open was the key in Kennedy's mind to ending the Cold War. Maybe even to help start a new world order, and a better society for all? It was looking like Kennedy was on the cusp of revealing explosive insights into the UFO phenomenon, only to find that certain people in the know were afraid of what Kennedy was about to do. If that memo had been acted upon and achieved as Kennedy had wanted it done, all hell would break lose for the USAF and CIA. The sh*t would really have hit the fan in those places, but at the same time it could have meant a new world order was on the cards for everyone, and genuine peace for all nations. However, in the end, the desperation of these people to stop a powerful man like Kennedy from forcibly revealing the deepest secrets was laid evident for the world to see on that fateful day in Dallas, Texas.

Sounds too incredible to be true? There is a solution. How about, as a final legacy from the former president who died trying to do the right thing (because he felt it was in the interest of the world to know the truth and bring peace with Russia), we all carry out his last request of revealing everything the CIA and the military knows about UFOs and what was found in New Mexico in early July 1947 (the one we know that contained a significant amount of a highly pure shape-memory titanium-based alloy, together with the unnamed pilots and crew members that were found onboard the unusually smooth and rounded metal object) as a matter of expediency? As the official authorities keep saying to the public, UFOs are nothing out-of-the-ordinary. Okay, prove it! If there is no evidence of any alien UFOs, then all UFO documents and the original materials of the Roswell object and bodies should be released to the public and let the scientific community conduct its own study of the evidence. No holding back or hesitation. Just release all UFO information and whatever was found near Roswell. A very simple solution. And to avoid the heavy redaction that may take place, there should be an independent body to oversee the process of redaction. If the redaction refers to names of existing agents in the field, fair enough. Have them blacked out. But everything else should be left intact and readable by the public. That's the reality one should expect to see. Surely this final effort is the least we could give the former president for all he tried to do for the world.

There should be no complaint from CIA or the USAF in this release of information. Otherwise, it would give the public good reason to believe that UFOs do represent something of significance to humankind. And that must surely be in the interest of the world to know the truth.


The earliest times when civilian scientists started talking about recycling energy and all of our waste products in the industrial age and avoid climate change had its origins around the mid-1950s. Of all places, incredibly enough, it happened in the U.S.. Unfortunately, and for whatever reason, the government and business professionals have pooh-poohed the idea in the face of profits.

This is a particularly important decision to make. The U.S. military and intelligence communities may have become aware of the importance of recycling energy following their analysis of a recovered flying disc but were afraid to allow the idea to come out and affect the economy. Any emphasis on recycling concepts could reveal the secret to recycling electromagnetic energy via Albert Einstein's Unified Field Theory and the potential for a new electromagnetic technology (i.e. the UFO). It is better to emphasise jobs, the current economy and profits, fossil fuels and traditional technologies, and just consume to our hearts contents and don't worry about recycling. Just throw the waste in the ground and in the oceans in the old proverbial "sweeping under the environmental carpet" so to speak and hope no one would see the problems, or the big secret, and things will return to normal. In the meantime, use up as much oil as possible while maintaining the status quo seems to be the order of the day. And to pay for all of it, everyone must get a paying job, any job that pays something, in the economic system and everything should be fine. An easy solution for those in the know.

But there are consequences for humankind in not taking this recycling approach seriously and early enough, only to be exacerbated by an expanding human population. We are living on this planet quite literally in the billions. Give it enough time and the lack or limited recycling will affect the planet. More and more people will have to look for new recycling ideas to solve world problems. And soon the big secret will come out.

Eventually humans will find out soon.

7 JUNE 1967

Project Blue Book’s first director Captain Edward J. Ruppelt (1923-1960) could not help notice the electromagnetic effects that were showing up in a growing number of genuine UFO reports. He said:

"During my tenure with Project Blue Book we had reports of radiation and induction fields in connection with UFOs. However, the information was sketchy and we were never able to pin it down. [The reports] of electromagnetic disturbances characterised a whole new dimension to the UFO investigation."

On discovering this fact, the U.S. government quickly changed the aim of Project Blue Book following the Robertson Panel report's recommendations (overseen by the CIA) in an attempt to convince the public that UFOs were merely misidentifications of man-made and natural objects. Under no circumstances would the government concede the possibility of something “alien” in the UFO reports. It was enough to force Ruppelt to retire from the Air Force under protest in 1954.

7 JUNE 1967

The existence of electromagnetic effects in UFO reports were affecting a small but growing contingent of scientists. As noted by Professor James McDonald, an atmospheric physicist, he said in a speech on June 7th, 1967:

"A wide range of electromagnetic disturbances accompanying close passage or hovering of the UFOs is now on record throughout the world…

…Disturbance of internal-combustion engines coincident with close passage of disk-like or cylindrical unconventional objects is on record in at least several hundred instances. Often the disturbances are accompanied by broad-spectrum electromagnetic noise picked up on radio devices…

…In many instances, compasses, both on ships and in aircraft, have been disturbed…Magnetometers and even wrist watches have been affected. All these reports, far too numerous to cite in detail, point to some kind of electromagnetic noise or electromagnetic side-effects.

However, with too many so-called rational and close-minded scientific colleagues willing to ridicule these more open-minded scientists, and compounded by the fact that the U.S. government wanted to keep the UFO secret going for longer, and a U.S. military willing to put the more curious scientists into more pragmatic jobs, a proper study of UFO reports would remain elusive for quite some time yet.


There is good evidence to suggest that the USAF have already understood the technology behind the UFO by the late 1970s. We can say this because by late December 1980, the USAF had tested a prototype for a new electromagnetic flying machine designed to mimic the common observations of UFOs. Testing was performed in the state of Texas, and observed by three unsuspecting civilian witnesses.

On the late evening of 29 December 1980, fifty-one-year-old business woman, Betty Cash, was driving home in her car with two other occupants: fifty-seven-year-old Vickie Landrum, an employee of a restaurant owned by Betty Cash, and her seven-year-old grandson, Colby Landrum. They drove along Highway FM1485 — only used by people who live in this sparsely-populated area because of its isolation — to get to their home in Dayton, Texas, U.S.A.

At around 9.00 p.m., Colby Landrum was the first to notice a brightly-lit UFO moving over treetops that bounded the highway on both sides. Betty and Vickie, who could not ignore Colby's state of jubilation and excitement, looked in the direction Colby's finger was pointing. The distance between them and the UFO at that time was about five kilometres. Then the object approached the witnesses, until it straddled the road ahead of them, forcing Betty to slam on the brakes.

The object was described as diamond-shaped with blue lights centered around its outermost rim, and it glowed intensely. A large, intermittent flame could also be seen underneath the object, keeping it aloft. Despite the bright glow, it looked as if it were made of dull aluminium; and the object itself seemed to be devoid of sharp points and edges.

All three witnesses got out of the car in full view of the object hovering only fifty metres away: Vickie standing just behind the open door on the right-hand side with her left hand resting on the car roof; Colby next to Vickie for protection; and Betty walking around to the front of the car. For the next three minutes or so, Vickie and Betty stared intently at the brightly-lit object ahead of them while Colby pleaded with Vickie to get back inside the car. Unaware that the car body was now acting as a giant ionizing x-ray machine from the streaming electrons coming off the surface of the UFO and hitting the stainless steel car body, the witnesses remained still as they watched what the object would do next. Then the object began to rise slowly in the air. On seeing this, Vickie called out to Betty. She responded, but noticed when she got back to the door of her car just how painfully hot the handle was. Betty successfully opened the door with her leather jacket. As they entered the car, all three witnesses felt the intense heat of the interior; they were forced to turn on the air conditioner (likely to be caused by the intense oscillating magnetic field of the object inducing electrical currents in the car's stainless steel body, thereby heating up the metal).

As they watched the UFO depart, a group of black helicopters suddenly arrived on the scene. 'They seemed to rush in from all directions,' Betty recalls, ' seemed like they were trying to encircle the thing.'

The last they saw of the UFO was when they drove off and joined a larger highway, where they could just make out what looked like a small cylindrical object lighting up the surrounding area and the helicopters following it closely. From this new vantage point, they counted 23 helicopters — some of the double-rotor (CH-47 Chinooks) and others of the single-rotor types.

By the time the witnesses arrived home, they all noticed their skin turning red as if badly sunburnt (especially Vickie's left hand), and a collection of blisters had appeared (especially on Betty's face). Other medical symptoms included headaches, diarrhoea, swellings on the neck and eyes, feelings of tiredness, and all had experienced hair loss of varying degrees of severity, with Colby being the least affected. After examination by doctors, it was concluded that the witnesses had probably been exposed to radiation of some type.

"This is a very important case providing physical evidence of the existence of UFOs," said John Schussler, a NASA aerospace engineer who investigated the case. "A radiologist who examined the women's records said they were apparently suffering from the symptoms of radiation poisoning."

As for proving whether or not the United States government was directly involved in the incident is extremely difficult, if not impossible. For as the New York Times reported on 20 January 1981: "Finding out what goes on in the CIA [and other clandestine organisations] is like performing acupuncture on a rock."

On top of that, it would be difficult to prove the USAF had owned the UFO unless the object landed in a public place or a document could be found to show the USAF was testing an electromagnetic flying vehicle. But it doesn't take a genius to realise it would have to be owned by the USAF. Anything that flies must be in the jurisdiction of the USAF, unless the military's left hand doesn't know what its right hand is doing. There is a renegade and supersecret military group doing this work and the US Department of Defence is unaware of this.

Of course, one could try the traditional blow torch of scientific knowledge about how UFOs work right up the proverbial backsides of those in the know at the CIA and the USAF. Then the scientific wedge will only widen the cracks in the secrecy and eventually force the truth out once civilians build a prototype.

Until then, which isn't too far away, it would appear that a small band of isolated American scientists forced under oath to maintain complete secrecy have reverse-engineered the crashed disk and the concept gathered behind it and this has resulted in the manufacture of a crude man-made example of a UFO. The use of a chemical propulsion directly below the glowing diamond-shaped object suggests a backup system is necessary should the primary electromagnetic propulsion concept using the electrical glow fail in any way.

After the close call the incident in Texas created with the public, the USAF moved over to a more secret and isolated location known as Area 51 to test more prototypes employing the UFO technology. Unfortunately for the military, some U.S. citizens have been able to come close enough and used binoculars to observe what is going on. And here we learn of glowing objects performing some remarkable feats in the air near the USAF base.

Or maybe it is time for the rest of the world to try this technology out for ourselves. Then we will know exactly what the USAF is hiding.


While UFOs might be considered too controversial for some people — mainly those who prefer to see things with their own eyes, or maintain a secret from the public — until evidence of a more direct nature is found (either to build the electromagnetic technology to take us to the stars, or to have just one alien civilisation make the decision to present the evidence to the scientific community), there is one area no one can ignore mainly because of the mounting direct scientific evidence to support the observations. It is the evidence supporting the view that humans are affecting the planet in ways that are not entirely helpful to the future of all living things. Of great concern is the greenhouse effect (the trapping of heat from the Sun) caused by the release of carbon dioxide and other similar warming pollutants from the burning of natural forests from land clearing and coal-fired power stations, the sudden release of stored methane under the oceans and in permafrosts to further raise world temperatures, greater levels of pollution in fresh water supplies and in the air from chemical factories, natural fish in the oceans becoming increasingly decimated from overfishing and being slowly poisoned by chemicals, massive glaciers melting and the beginning of what will almost certainly become massive sea level rises beyond the current predictions made by computer modelling, and so on.

Among the scientific evidence in support of the "greenhouse gas" problem (or global warming, researchers at the University of Alaska have discovered an alarming increase in the rate of melting of ice after surveying 67 major glaciers. It has already been known since the mid-1950s that glaciers were melting. However, a study has found in the five years to 2002, the rate of melting has almost doubled to nearly 52 cubic kilometres a year compared to the rate of melting from the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s (26). And the process is accelerating. The consequences are clear: pure ice from the glaciers are turning into water which eventually flows to the sea and this in turn raises the world's sea levels, putting coastal cities at higher risk of being flooded. The researchers came to this conclusion after measuring on an annual basis the changes occurring to the surface of glaciers using a laser system transported in an aircraft.

And now some scientists are claiming the greenhouse gases in the air is in greater concentrations than for the last 400,000 years and increasing at a rate more rapid than at any time in the history of life on Earth. The warning bells are ringing.

Even the economic costs to deal with this problem are escalating and eventually even the richest nations on Earth will struggle to raise enough taxes to cover the costs. At some point the economic system will collapse under the weight of the environmental problems and costs to fix them, and there will not be enough resources to manage the problem. A major and new social world order will have to begin if we are going to solve this problem.

Are the brains of humans big enough to solve the biggest environmental problems of our times, and do it quick enough? Or has greed and power taken over the most powerful leaders of the world and their supporters (i.e., the people who support the system), And can we afford the USAF to continue hiding all it can about its knowledge of UFO technology from the rest of the world?

Or are there too many Christians in the world who believe the Bible story in Genesis still applies in the 21st century and we can still continue to multiply and use up the resources without recycling? As we find in the Old Testament:

"Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over every living thing that moves upon the earth." (Genesis 1:28)

Continue with this thinking and soon the environment will have dominion over humans in a negative way once the resources are depleted and we have thrown our waste into the atmosphere. It sounds like certain people in the world will be reliving the Aztec experience very soon. And there will definitely be no religion for people to practice too with this kind of bizarre unsustainable thinking.

Maybe it is time we start practising the principle of love in its most fundamental sense with all living things (it isn't all for the humans) and not expect to always "multiply" at the expense of other living things. We must live within our means, and let people find innovative and long-term solutions to solve all problems without having to pay people with money. Instead give them love through the food and shelter they need, and give them access to knowledge and the essential tools, and the rest will be taken care of by the people. Because only then we will all do the right thing by one another.