WADE FRAZIER : A Healed Planet

[Carmody]

Posted by Ilie Pandia (here)

Posted by Wade Frazier (here)
Whales have far larger brains, and I consider it highly likely that we cannot even begin to fathom how whales think. They provided energy however, so we hunted them to the brink of extinction.

A short detour. This is something that I struggle with. If whales are smarter than us, how come they have allowed them to be hunted down to the brink of extinction? Why didn't they imagine ways of staying out of our reach. Do you have any thoughts on this? (Other than perhaps some mystical reasons that my human mind cannot fathom I don't understand why wouldn't they keep way from such a savage species).

http://www.amazon.com/Cachalot-Alan-.../dp/0345280660

[Hughe]

Open Source hardware is expanding fast like the Open Source software has been growing.
Hopefully some Free Energy technologies come out to public domain soon. Then, the world is going to change dramatically.

People will have equal power to the government or big corporation through Open Source community.
The following clips briefly introduced cutting edge drones, high-tech machines.
Imagine civilians could monitor government's military operation using community owned satellites. The expansion of knowledge is irreversible.

I think the one last business sector that has huge barrier is energy industry. As I said often, open source project is only way to bring out Free Energy power generators to people in the world.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=UoBUXOOdLXY

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

Thanks Sandy and CdnSirian for the help.

Hi WhiteFeather:

The intention was that non-FE-device questions could be asked on this thread. But I am going to address your question here, because it is only a little ahead of where I was planning to take my readers. My goal is to help my non-scientist readers think comprehensively, and what that helps people do is see the forest from the trees on the energy issue. For many years, it has been particularly disheartening to see the media and energy establishment promote energy “solutions” that are anything but real answers. The only energy solution that is going to save our bacon is a radical new energy source, and the media and establishment are guilty of promoting fancy stuff such as electric cars, hydrogen cars, air cars, biofuels, etc.; none of those have anything to do with a new energy source.

The question that I have always asked since I was a teenager in these realms is, “Where does the energy come from?” That is always the question that needs to be asked and answered. The rest is sideshow and distraction.

I got into it a little bit a few posts ago, where I likened the capture and use of energy by plants and life to a waterfall:

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...all#post534214

I really won’t get too much more into the technicalities than that example in my upcoming essay. On this thread, you can see where people have been greatly misled by media cheerleading on extracting energy from urine and other biofuels. The energy that is in coal, for instance, was captured from sunlight hundreds of millions of years ago by primordial trees:

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post527620

The energy in oil is from a wider range of dates, but was ultimately captured from sunlight, and was removed from the ecosystems when the oceans went anoxic during mass extinction events:

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post522316

The Industrial Revolution is entirely predicated on mining that ancient sunlight, and it is running out fast.

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post447579

The energy source for hydrogen cars is not hydrogen. Hydrogen is just a storage medium, like a battery. The energy source for hydrogen cars is electricity. In the USA, the energy source for most electricity is burning coal. So, as far as where its energy is coming from, a hydrogen car is really no different than a gasoline-burning automobile. One is burning the energy captured by land-based plants, and the other is burning energy captured by marine-based photosynthesizers. There is no fundamental difference there, no matter how the final energy release is disguised.

There are so-called water-based energy solutions, such as Mills and his hydrinos or one application of Brown’s Gas. But the hydrino solution is not really getting energy from hydrogen, but is tapping the zero-point-field. For the transmutation aspects of Brown’s Gas:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/energy.htm#yull

the energy being released is nuclear, not chemical (electron energy). Hydrinos and the Brown’s Gas transmutation effects are outside the boundaries of the theories of White Science, so they defy the “laws of physics.” I am personally not interested in windmills and other solar-based energy sources, not when I know that there is another energy source that dwarfs it, and is clean and inexhaustible. That is the stuff that Godzilla has the lid tightly on:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/advent.htm#make

When he sees the media telling the public that hybrid cars, biofuels, and other “innovations” are going to solve our problems, and the public ignorantly believes it, then Godzilla gets a big smile on his face, knowing that the game is well in hand.

And for those few who get past denial of free energy, the ones who begin sniffing around the free energy game, they nearly invariably disappear down the rabbit holes that I call Levels 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/paradigm.htm#level6

Hughe has it right in that any free energy effort has to be based on an open source solution to have a prayer, but I have never heard of an inventor with the goods willing to open source it. They all try to get rich off of it, get patents, and so on. One of the hard parts of open sourcing is that several years ago I had a dialogue with one of the parents of open sourcing:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/freesoft.htm

and he was a totally stuck Level 3 guy:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/paradigm.htm#level3

dismissing free energy as “contrary to the laws of physics” and tales of its suppression as a “conspiracy theory.” Those kinds of reactions are why this is a conundrum:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/conun.htm

Almost nobody on Earth today sees the big picture or wants to, but they all carve out their particular niche of hell and hang their hat on the scarcity-based ideologies of their choice, the ones that feed them:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/paradigm.htm#dominant

and they never leave.

WhiteFeather, I have seen your big heart in action in this forum, as Sandy mentions. Your big heart is needed. Will you come with me to a world of abundance? We won’t get there by garage tinkering, but if enough of us can understand how the world really works and can hold the vision, together we might be able to get something done.

I plan to make more ape and early man posts in the coming days, and I will eventually get to that contraption known as civilization.

Best,

Wade

[Melinda]

Posted by Wade Frazier (here)
...WhiteFeather, I have seen your big heart in action in this forum, as Sandy mentions. Your big heart is needed. Will you come with me to a world of abundance?...

For WhiteFeather, and all the other big hearts...

[IMG][/IMG]

[CdnSirian]

"I have greater hopes for the free software movement, as the ideas put forth by Richard Stallman, Eben Moglen and others neatly align with the abundance paradigm, and in my work I make it clear what three factors led to humanity’s rise on earth: energy, manipulative ability and intelligence. The reproduction of intelligence is in its infancy. I consider the free software movement’s members to be fellow travelers and possibly much more. I have designed information systems professionally, and have given away a way to use software to immediately and dramatically raise the standard of living of millions of Americans, turning a miserable profession into something much more pleasant. I have yet to find a receptive audience to the idea, but the free software movement can help make it happen. Technically, making my idea come to fruition would be easy. Is there any interest in dialogue? "

from: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/freesoft.htm

For those interested, you can see talks by the two gentlemen mentioned above, on youtube. They are humble yet confident individuals, and are aware of both the strengths and failings of the open source movement.

Thanks Wade for this reference!

[Wade Frazier]

Hi CdnSirian:

One of those that I name is that stuck Level 3 guy. Almost nobody sees the big picture, but only see their little corner of it and think they have it figured out.

Best,

Wade

[Ernie Nemeth]

Hi Wade. You know I eagerly await the meat of this conversation. Even a bit impatiently.

There are areas where I do not see things the same, especially with the support of random suppositions science has made. For instance, I do not see any reason to suppose that the earth has just lazily slid along its course without some major interactions with other bodies or energies sometime in the past - thereby altering the geologic history. This then nullifies at least some of the "givens" in various branches of science. Also, Darwin's evolution theories are highly suspect, except perhaps in the specific area of land-locked speciation. Even the genesis of oil, gas and coal has some very interesting counter-theories of which Velekovsky is most notable. Now, even the reality of the electron is being questioned. The team at the Cern collider has statistically and indirectly "proven" the existence of the Higgs boson to 99.98% certainty, using the insubstantial and paltry instances that were within the correct parameters (400 collisions out of 20,000,000,000,000). So the standard model survives again.

With the above in mind, my question is: "How do we proceed via comprehensive thinking to a global view when the specifics are not nailed down?"

I think you have made your point quite clear already, that the source of a fuel limits the cost-benifit ratio of the fuel. And that a cheap or practically free fuel would generate the greatest leap forward in terms of the evolution of our civilization and all species in general ever experienced upon this world.

That was a great appetizer. Now let's get to the main course!

I'm with Sandy, heart intelligence is key. There has been a noticeable lack of it of late in the world at large, if one was to believe the mainstream media. Although it doesn't seem to be true in my personal experience. People are the same the world over. They have the same aspirations and the same ideals. None of them include killing or war or punishment or fear or starvation or disease. Instead, we all want to be loved, respected, at peace, healthy, properous, happy and useful.

Funny thing about love is, the more love you give the more love you have to give away. It's the whole give and receive thing.

That's abundance.

[CdnSirian]

Posted by Wade Frazier (here)
Hi CdnSirian:

One of those that I name is that stuck Level 3 guy. Almost nobody sees the big picture, but only see their little corner of it and think they have it figured out.

Best,

Wade

That surprises me, although I have not viewed all their material yet. One would think it would be easy for either of them to get the abundance paradigm. But, people are people, as they say.

[Wade Frazier]

Hi Ernie:

On Earth’s past, the geological epochs that I have been referring to were identified long before radioactive dating was discovered. They were given their relative dates by the fossils found in them. A great deal of that predated Darwin’s theory of evolution. Then Darwin’s theory came along (and yes, I am aware that he was far from the first to propose evolution as a theory, but he gets a lot of credit), and a lot became clearer in the fossil record.

The radioactive dating methods, and there are quite a few of them, agreed with all of the relative dates, as far as what were considered the older layers were indeed found to be the older layers. And scientists have been putting absolute dates on the fossils ever since. It is a highly-developed science that I cannot do justice to here, but they can now date stuff that is far smaller than a pinhead. Many fringe theorists challenge the dating methods, and propose events that make it all invalid, but when I have looked into them, none of it held up very well, mostly being on the order of highly speculative theory that has almost no unequivocal evidence to back it up. A scientist would not even call them theories, but ad hoc hypotheses.

And, as I have written, we have an obvious unequivocal timekeeping device, which is the snail’s trail that the hotspot that spawned the Hawaiian Islands:

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post491738

has left on the ocean floor. Those islands have been moving at about the speed of a fingernail’s growth for eighty million years. And when they sampled the underwater seamounts that were predicted to have formed many millions of years ago, the radioactive dating confirmed the speed of the snail’s trail. That is far from the only correlation like that. When they find meteorites that seem to have formed when our solar system formed, they date them with the radioactive dating, and they confirm their ancient age:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chondrite

When we brought back moon rocks from the Apollo missions (yes, we really went! http://www.ahealedplanet.net/brianmem.htm#apollo ), the ages of the rocks also confirm the theories of the moon’s origin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock

I have been on the fringes of the Velikovsky controversy for nearly twenty years. Many in the controversy acted quite dishonorably, such as Carl Sagan:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/dennis.htm#velikovsky

but while Einstein graciously gave Velikovsky his time, and Velikovsky’s prediction that Jupiter would emit radio waves astounded Einstein, to the point where Einstein had Worlds in Collision open on his desk when he died, I know of no serious astronomer who believes that Venus is only a few thousand years old. I get emails all the time on the latest Velikovskian news, and about the only people promoting Velikovsky’s theories are journalists, English teachers, and other non-scientists. You never found Brian O, the only planetary scientist in the astronaut program in the 1960s, promoting Velikovsky’s theories of a young Venus.

Similarly, I know of no serious geologist who buys the abiotic oil theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

If you study Velikovsky’s theories, or those of the Stalinist scientists who were the pioneers of abiotic oil theory, they were formed before plate tectonic theory was developed, for instance. And techniques such as determining carbon 12/13 ratios have really put the nails in the coffin of the abiotic oil theory.

So, when I see the challenges to White Science on Earth’s past, I always have come away unimpressed. On first blush, a lot of it can seem credible, but on closer inspection, the theories crumble in the face of the evidence. In some ways, that stuff is like the moon landings. The disinformation and discredited theories are recycled continually among the scientifically illiterate:

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...010#post478010

in tabloid style. So, when you say that the orthodox theories of Earth’ past are flawed, just how are they? It is true that neutrino fluxes affect radioactive decay, but the people who have found evidence of it are not saying that you can just throw out radioactive dating.

There is plenty of fringe theorizing on a highly variable solar output, but again, virtually none of them are scientists in the field of studying the sun or other stars. I am certainly not saying that White Science has it all figured out, and I know some of what is in the Golden Hoard of Black Science, but I have yet to encounter anything really impressive on alternative geology that argues for a story markedly different than what professional geologists, paleontologists, and other scientists have pieced together over the past few centuries. The fossil record is very clear, and radioactive dating, combined with geomagnetic studies and measurements of what the tectonic plates are doing today, along with a great deal of other evidence, such as evolutionary theory, have created a highly robust story that no fringe theory that I know of can come close to challenging. When somebody says that they have something that overturns it all, I have never seen any of it amount to much, as the fringe author tried to make a mountain out of a molehill.

I have a very intentional way that I am going about this. I am trying to help my readers think comprehensively, and when they do, they will see that the energy issue is front and center and always has been. Then the tabloid topics might get less play at Avalon and on my threads, but that is probably wishful thinking. Getting people focused on what is important is like herding cats – not just at Avalon, but everywhere. That is where comprehensive thinking comes into the picture. I was doing it for many years before I heard that there was a name for what I was doing.

Hi CdnSirian:

The obtuseness of a leading open source prophet is just par for the course. I have been at this for most of my life, and all of us had our dismaying moments when trying to engage people, people who you would think would be receptive. I had my eyes opened regarding the environmentalists in the 1980s:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/purpose...ironmentalists

and Brian O found that out the hard way ten years later:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/brianmem.htm#sentience

That is why I say that I am looking for needles in haystacks. The so-called Radical Left pursues a very tame sort of “radicalism”:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/radleft.htm

Again, there is no group on Earth that gets it, except Godzilla. He knows very well what I am writing about, but almost nobody else on Earth does.

Time for chores.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

In the midst of chores, I want to make something clear if it is not already. My mantra that it will take heart-centered sentience to get us over the hump is not some theory that I dreamed up one day; it is the product of a lifetime spent in these issues, but most importantly, it is informed by my efforts to help make FE happen:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/advent.htm#hitting

Even people close to me do not understand it. If I had not taken my odyssey with Dennis, which that damned voice led me on, I would very likely have nothing worth saying. My perspective came about due to my experiences, and what traumatizing experiences they were. Study and book-learning have their place, but it is really a small place. The greatest teacher is experience, not books and theories.

Scholars have studied warfare their entire lives, but there is nothing to bring the reality home like a few minutes on a battlefield. Scholars without experience, proposing theories, can be like kids playing games. That is partly why I have no respect for armchair “skeptics,” even the few who might even be honest:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/dennis.htm#friends

Back to chores.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

Back to apes. The mystic does not believe that life is an accident in a universe that exists for unknown reasons. Whether life was seeded here by extraterrestrial civilizations, or life somehow bootstrapped itself from inanimate raw materials on solutions far from their equilibrium state, in the end, I consider the distinction fairly minor. I know that consciousness is something far, far beyond the grasp of the chemical, materialistic models of White Science. But a person needs direct personal experience to really begin to understand. If I had not had my mystical awakening in a meditation training class:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/spirit.htm#silva

the rest of my odyssey might not have happened. Brian O had his mystical awakening performing the exact same exercise, which today is called a remote viewing:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/brianmem.htm#remote

It ruined both of us as White Scientists, although it would take us some time to realize it.

Also, everybody whom I really respect in the FE field is, to one degree or another, a mystic, and that was always due to their direct personal experience, not indoctrination into a belief system. History’s greatest physicists were also, to one degree or another, a bunch of mystics:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/energy.htm#mystical

They all realized the limits of White Science. That does not make the New Age stuff or Fringe Science stuff valid, and arguably most of it is not, but the materialistic framework is a limiting one. Isolating a mechanism does not solve the big picture. With those caveats aside, I respect a great deal of what White Science has discovered, but I am cautious of its limits, especially where the nature of consciousness is concerned, which White Science has really not even begun to explore, but there is where it will find God, or at least hints that point in that direction, and it is an inner journey, not an outer one, which confounds today’s White Scientists.

The last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees lived several million years ago:

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post536013

Mammals had relatively large brains from their earliest days, and primates and cetaceans grew the largest brains in the animal kingdom. What that all means is still poorly understood from a White Science perspective, but for the mammals with the ability to manipulate objects with its prehensile paws, eventually large species evolved, and the great apes are humanity’s closest cousins, and studies of them have been profitable, for those who can admit that humans are apes (Ilie’s favorite part ):

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...zee#post528110

Human culture is really one a difference of degree from the other great apes, not of kind, although the debate can be a fierce one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture...ion_of_culture

But every year, more discoveries are made that demonstrate that what was once considered the sole province of us smart humans is comprixed of traits and behaviors shared by many other species, not just great apes.

Even ants use tools:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tool_us...nimals#Insects

and cetacean intelligence is hotly debated:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetacean_intelligence

Again, when I recently hung out with a dolphin community, they considered dolphins their peers, and the ability of dolphins to read minds is universally acknowledged in those circles, because of their experiences with that ability:

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post511613

White Science has barely begun to understand the “intelligence” issue, but its findings shed light on human behavior and traits that we take for granted. For instance, the dimorphism of humans has been that way for millions of years. All great apes are dimorphic, and can be far more dramatic than human dimorphism, such as with gorillas, where males are twice the size of females:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorilla...haracteristics

Sexual dimorphism is thought to be a result of how animals choose their mates:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_...hism#Evolution

and how animals mate is a key aspect of great ape culture. Much of human mating dynamics have their analog in how great apes mate. One of the more painful areas of research is male sexual coercion of females among primates (see Muller and Wrangham’s Sexual Coercion in Primates and Humans, for instance). It is not confined to great apes, as spider monkeys and baboons do it, and dolphins can do it, too.

It comes down to a cost-benefit issue, it seems. A female invests a great deal of her life’s energy being a mother, while a male can get away with only “donating” sperm. Mating dynamics dominate great ape behavior. Orangutans have males that come in two sizes: one is the classic “flanged” male that is the preferred mate of females (kind of like how a muscular, hairy-chested, broad shouldered man tends to attract the ladies), and unflanged males resort to raping the females when they get the chance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orangut..._and_parenting

But male orangs have almost no parental duties, with females doing all the parenting. Orangs appear to have some culture, even though they have nothing like a nuclear family.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orangut...se_and_culture

Although the distance of orangs from humans is still debated in orthodoxy:

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...ngs#post533612

of the great apes, their social structure is the furthest from humanity’s. Gorillas are the next furthest away, and their social organization is dominated by the huge silverback male and his harem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorilla#Social_structure

with gangs of males that seek to overthrow the silverbacks and set themselves up as the new patriarchs. There are differences between the social structures of mountain and lowland gorillas, but in both, the silverback male is the benevolent patriarch if he has a harem to himself. But in groups with more than one silverback, or when male gangs challenge the silverback’s position, then the aggression against the females increases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorilla#Social_structure

If a silverback is overthrown, the new leader will kill the infant gorillas that aren’t his. The selfish-gene theory (a term coined by our friend Dawkins):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene

posits that the will to reproduce and leave behind offspring leads to that infanticide. It might be surprising to humans, but the female gorilla will then mate with the murderer of her offspring. A fertile female’s genes are guaranteed to reproduce, but unrequited males are commonly found in mammals with harems, such as elephant seals.

http://www.marinebio.net/marinescien...on/esrepro.htm

That infant-killing dynamic is not confined to gorillas, but chimpanzees and even predators such as lions do it. The current thinking is that killing the infants brings the mothers back into mating season, so the killers can procreate. That is a big difference between the great apes and humans. As Wrangham has written, evolution has a lot to answer for, as behaviors like that abound in nature.

In our closest cousins, the chimpanzees, it is a variation of the gorilla dynamic. Chimpanzee troops are not dominated by one male chimp, but by hierarchical gangs of males, and the most politically-savvy male that forms the most effective alliances becomes dominant; not necessarily the strongest one. Male chimpanzees use carrots and sticks to induce females to mate with them, but what makes chimps very different from gorillas is that they regularly coerce females to mate by violence. Male chimps regularly “batter” the females, to get mating privileges. Female chimps are also known to band together and choose their “leader” alpha male, and can oust the alpha male that does not provide the goods, but chimpanzee society is dominated by violent males.

Female chimps have monthly menstrual cycles like humans do, and there is obvious swelling with female chimps when they are fertile. In general, the dominant males mate with the females when they seem likeliest to conceive, but female chimps are the most promiscuous great ape. One theory is that a promiscuous female increases the odds of her offspring surviving if the males are unsure of their paternity. There are several competing theories, but the confused paternity theory is a leading one (see Jon Cohen’s Almost Chimpanzee, where he names the confusion strategy “Who’s Your Daddy?”), and it is likely a combination of factors.

Chimpanzees are the most carnivorous and violent great apes, and they are known to engage in genocide by wiping out neighboring bands. Gorillas are adapted to eat more leafy matter than chimpanzees are. They can stay in one place better than chimpanzees do, so they tend to stay in relatively small territories compared to chimpanzees. The majority of orangutan and chimpanzee diets are fruit, and chimpanzees seasonally hunt when their foraging opportunities decline. Of the great apes, chimpanzees have lifestyles closest to what early hunter-gatherer humans are believed to have had.

Those advancing and retreating ice sheets of the current ice age made the rainforests grow and shrink.

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post536013

North of the Congo River:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_River

gorillas and chimpanzees share the same range, and the gorillas “won” in that they can eat the leafier matter and don’t have to forage so far. But gorillas need a rainforest to produce that lush leafy matter. Chimpanzees got the short end of the deal and have to travel more to fill their bellies (being far smaller must have something to do with it –in a chimp and gorilla fight, the chimp does not stand a chance http://www.monkeyday.org/2005/07/gor...ksonville.html ).

Less than a million years ago, however, something extraordinary happened. During one of those periods when the ice sheets advanced, the rainforest shrank to the degree that gorillas abandoned the land south of the Congo. Then the chimpanzees south of the Congo did not have gorillas eating the leaves, and those chimpanzees then evolved to eat more leaves. That sudden increase in available food initiated a radical change on the southern chimp political economy.

The chimps north of the Congo forage in bands, seeking fruit trees, and those foraging bands were small and dominated by males. In the southern forests where the gorillas migrated away and never returned, the foraging parties could be larger (a widely fluctuating 2-9 for the northern chimps, and about a stable 16 for the southern chimps), with more females in them, as they all ate more leafy matter. The females eventually took over and ended male aggression and dominance, and those southern chimpanzees are considered a new species, the bonobo:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/lessons.htm#bonobo

They are the chimps that make love, not war. Sex, not violence, is the locus of bonobo social interaction. Humans branched from the chimpanzee line several million years ago, but I find it highly interesting that a more abundant energy supply became the foundation of a gentle chimpanzee society. Wrangham and Peterson wrote in their Demonic Males,

“Bonobos have evolved in a forest that is kindlier in its food supply, and that allows them to be kindly, too.”

It can be enlightening to study our great ape cousins, but we are obviously different, although maybe not as much as people would like to think. Our ancestors left the trees, we grew large brains, and our social behavior is far more complex than that of our great ape cousins. A leading theory of human brain development is that our brains grew in response to increasing demands brought on by more complex social dynamics. But I will leave our cousins aside for now and focus on the ape line that led to us, and that will be in future posts, which are coming soon.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

OK, let’s go back to when the ancestor of chimps and humans lived, about five million years ago. It likely looked like a chimp, because the environment that chimps live in has not changed much in the meantime. Chimps nest in trees, and a chimp makes a new nest every night. Gorillas are the only great ape to make nests on the ground (although they also make them in trees), because nothing really preys on them. They are truly kings of the jungle. Chimps do not suffer that badly from predation themselves, because they can fight in groups. Leopards and lions seem to be the greatest threats:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_chimpanzee#Ecology

Tigers are the main predators of orangutans:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orangut..._and_behaviour

Chimps not only use tools, but they make tools, even spears:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_chimpanzee#Tool_use

Chimps are a window into the human past, and much about them is currently thought to give strong hints of how our common ancestor might have behaved.

Ardi is the earliest creature that seems to be a descendant down the line from the chimp/human ancestor that led to humans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardi

Ardi could navigate in the trees and on the ground. The canine teeth of Ardi were smaller than the other great apes, suggesting that alpha male dynamics may have become more muted early on, before brains grew and protohumans left the trees.

The famous Lucy skeleton is the first that walked fully upright.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)

Lucy’s brain was still ape-sized; the spectacular enlargement came later, which provides evidence of the positive feedback effect on enlarging the brain.

About 2.6 million years ago, the first stone tools were made by protohumans:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_t...dowan_Industry

There were obviously other tools made by protohumans, but only the stone tools have survived to be examined. There is debate over the creators of those early stone tools, where they were an australopithecus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_garhi

or homo habilis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_habilis

Homo habilis is generally considered to be the first member of the genus homo, which led to humans:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo

although the fossil record is so sparse that other contenders have appeared recently:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_gautengensis

and more likely will. What was once considered the “missing link” has largely fragmented into missing linklets as more fossils are discovered.

Homo habilis was a staple in the predatory cat diet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_ha...nterpretations

And as is typical in evolution, there were evolutionary branches that spawned a fair number of protohuman species. They have all died out except for humans, but quite a few had their day in the sun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hu...utionchart.jpg

The primary dynamic of those early protohuman days that the investigation and theory revolves around is walking upright freed the hands for tool-making, which led to the feasibility of exploiting new habitats and new foods. The brain of homo habilis is about 50% larger than the australopithecus species that it descended from.

The likely progression is that protohumans left the rainforest for woodlands, and their diet had to change. In Wrangham and Peterson’s Demonic Males, they posit that the changes in tooth and jaw structure of the early woodland apes seem to have been an adaptation to eating roots, which would have been the logical food that would have been newly available as the rainforest was left behind. The loss of the sagittal crest, which supports strong chewing muscles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittal_crest

is currently thought to have freed up the skull to allow the brain to expand. While some early hominins had large sagittal crests:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranthropus

the line that led to humans lost it.

At some stage, the trees were left behind and those upright apes made the ground their permanent home, not the trees. The trends in evidence for nearly two million years were spectacularly increasing brain size, increasing sophistication in stone tools, and the likelihood that those protohumans began to hunt with their expanding toolset.

A little less than two million years ago, homo erectus appeared on the scene, and it was a highly significant member of our evolutionary line. There is still debate whether homo erectus and homo ergaster are separate species:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_Er...al_distinction

Homo erectus had a brain more than twice as large as australopithecus species:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...ree.pdf&page=1

Homo erectus was nearly six feet tall, and homo erectus left its African home and migrated to Eurasia. At some stage, homo erectus achieved the great energy feat which separated it from all animals that went before it: the mastery of fire. Maintaining a fire is an unprecedented social act, where a community organizes itself to stoke a fire. In Richard Wrangham’s Catching Fire, he proposes the radical hypothesis that humans could not fully leave the trees until they had a way to keep predators at bay. Wrangham posits that the mastery of fire happened far earlier than is currently hypothesized, and that it may have been mastered nearly two million years ago, and led to the appearance of homo erectus.

Some of the greatest anatomical changes yet recorded are those that separated homo erectus from its habiline ancestors. The homo erectus tooth changed more than for any member of the human line for six million years, as it became far smaller. Homo erectus lost the ability to navigate in trees, and its gut became smaller. What is not very controversial is that the smaller gut meant that the protohuman diet became easier to digest. Some think that it was because protohumans began eating more meat, which was indeed the case, but Wrangham makes the case that those changes in homo erectus anatomy were due to the effects of cooking food. It is universally acknowledged that homo erectus mastered fire, but Wrangham pushes it back nearly a million years, arguing that mastering fire led to homo erectus. Wrangham argues that the savanna was a poor candidate for preserving evidence of fires.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_Erectus#Use_of_fire

The debate has been lively, but what is not debated is that homo erectus is the first protohuman to leave Africa, and it is the first to have practiced the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Leaving its home behind could not have happened unless homo erectus was supremely adaptable to the new environs. Hunting would have been a universal way to adapt to life beyond the tropics. Also, this all happened during the current ice age, with advancing and retreating ice sheets, which introduced radical changes in the climate and vegetation. Hunting could have been a “constant” for homo erectus during the incredibly long time of its existence, of about 1.5 million years, which is far longer than any other member of the human line.

It is time to run off to work, and more is coming soon.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

Wrangham’s cooking hypothesis is pretty strong, IMO. One effect of cooking is that it predigests food. Gorillas have a large gut, to digest all that leafy matter. Homo erectus’s shrinking gut was part of a trend. Not only were guts smaller, but it took less energy to digest food. That meant more available energy for protohumans, and that energy was largely used to run the protohuman’s enlarging brain. The human brain is an energy hog, consuming about ten times as much energy as average flesh does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_brain#Metabolism

It is the highest performance organ, and increasing energy efficiency in digestion helped make it possible. Also, less time is needed for chewing. If people ate the chimpanzee diet, they would be chewing for five hours a day compared to the one hour a day that the average human child does today. That time was spent in other activities, stimulating the brain.

There are downsides to cooking, such as increasing free radicals, which age us, but the vagaries of the preindustrial existence limited the human lifespan. A farmer in the British Isles in the 1200s had a life expectancy of about 25 years, and that was for those that survived childhood. Free radical damage was not a limiting factor until life expectancies rose during the industrial age.

Chimpanzees can hunt in groups. Somewhere along the line, protohumans transitioned from being scavengers to predators. Homo erectus was a predator, and because it evolved in Africa and soon moved to Asia, African and Asian megafauna had more than a million years of evolution around those weapon-bearing protohumans, and learned to fear and avoid them. Consequently, the megafauna of Africa and Asia survived the arrival of those bipeds in better shape than anywhere else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quatern...frica_and_Asia

When humans began to invade the other continents, the megafaunal extinctions were nearly total:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quatern...and_New_Guinea

After the easy meat was rendered extinct, the Domestication Revolution happened independently in several places on Earth. But let’s back up again to those early protohumans.

Homo erectus was about the first protohuman to leave Africa, but it was far from the last. Not long after protohumans migrated to Asia, likely following the migrations of African animals, some migrated to Southern Europe. The brain of homo erectus was still only about two-thirds the size of today’s human brain. Quite a few species appeared on the scene after homo erectus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_(genus)#Species

generally appearing in Africa and migrating to Europe and Asia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hu...utionchart.jpg

They keep finding more fossils of previously unknown species:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denisova_hominin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis

Perhaps somewhat ironically, as the fossil record becomes more robust as we come closer to today, the controversies become fiercer, as the human ego rears its head.

Language may have begun developing as early as homo habilis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language#Origin

but the issue is controversial. In my lifetime, it was thought that Neanderthals could not speak:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_...thals_speak.3F

Now, it is thought that Neanderthals had speech capability not markedly different than homo sapiens. Stone tools kept getting more sophisticated:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_a...echnocomplexes

Again, the interaction of tools, environment, and biology are thought to have led to the appearance of humans. Our tools made us. The advancing and retreating ice sheets certainly affected human evolution, and somewhere around 200K years ago, anatomically modern humans appeared on the scene.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#H._sapiens

The evidence is strong that humans first appeared in African and began to migrate from Africa between 125K and 70K years ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_..._out_of_Africa

They had the most advanced toolset yet, the largest brain, and about 80K years ago, the first symbols may have appeared on the evolutionary scene:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language#Origin

I have to run to work now, but will continue the human journey in future posts.

Best,

Wade

[4evrneo]

Welcome Wade ! I have read much of your story and give you many thanks for sharing such a courageous journey. My soul has told me that this dream does exist, not sure where in the timeline, but it already exists in my mind and I will not let it leave my focus.
All the best to you,
Annette

[Wade Frazier]

Hi 4evrneo:

Thanks for lending your awareness to this issue. It helps.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

Going to bed now, but…

By this weekend, there will be 200K views of the thread. For what I am trying to do, I would much rather have 1,000 people who have visited 200 times than 20,000 people who visited ten times (or 200K once each ). It seems to be more like the first scenario, and that is what I am intending. We are going to need to go deep to achieve and maintain the vision.

Best,

Wade

[Ixopoborn]

I am certainly an avid reader Wade .

[Chris Gilbert]

Hey Wade, just wanted to say that your writings have greatly inspired me over the years. I first started studying your page back in 2002-2003, and it permanently changed the way I view the world.

The abundance vs scarcity shift that needs to occur in our collective awareness and thinking is definitely the key issue. Even if free energy is not implemented for some time, a shift to abundance based thinking would still initiate great improvements in other areas. I've been try to promote public banking (www.webofdebt.com) for this very reason.

[Wade Frazier]

Hi Ixopoborn:

My wife is a cat person, and she has seen your icon in the past and remarked how I am attracting the kitties. Happy you are here.

When biologists study ecosystems, both living and extinct, one rule seems to be that life forms will breed to the limits of the nutrient supply, which is primarily energy. If we go back to Liebig’s Law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebig%...of_the_Minimum

other nutrients can limit growth. In water-based ecosystems such as lakes and oceans, nitrogen and phosphorus are often the limiting factors. People do not seem to generally realize it, but most of Earth’s oceans are the equivalent of deserts. Most of the world’s fish catch is made close to a coastline. The blue patches in the oceans at the link below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_fisheries#Biomass

are where photosynthesis is lowest, and hence the most barren oceanic ecosystems. That is because the phosphorus and nitrogen almost exclusively come from runoff from land. When microscopic life gets ahold of those nutrients, it uses them. When those organisms die, they sink to the ocean floor and are removed from the photosynthetic ecosystem. Near the coasts and poles is upwelling from the ocean floor, which recycles some of those nutrients. There are seasonal blooms in lakes and oceans, which are caused by the available nutrients. The bloom ends when the nutrients are used up. Every life form reproduces to the extent of its capacity, filling up its niche. Anthropologists see humans as no different. Richard Heinberg (http://www.ahealedplanet.net/hooked.htm ) even likened humans to those aquatic blooms, reproducing like crazy until the nutrients were used up. He said it in a sympathetic way, but the analogy is apt, and from its earliest days, humans used their increasing technological prowess for windfall energy gains, using it until it was used up, and then searching for the next windfall.

Anatomically-modern humans appeared on the scene around 200K years ago, in Africa. But it was not until about 50,000 years ago that those modern humans attained the technological prowess that led to the golden age of the hunter gatherer. I have mentioned in this thread the increasing toolset of today’s scientists and the increasing multidisciplinary nature of their efforts.

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...ers#post531531

Another area where the tools and findings have been growing by leaps and bounds lately is in genetic research. Scientists are mapping DNA and isolating what parts of the strands do what. It is not confined to humans, and the DNA of plants and animals are being subjected to that mapping, and scientists have even been extracting DNA from fossils. The Neanderthal DNA has been sequenced:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neander...genome_project

and there is great controversy being generated over its findings. In the recent The 10,000 Year Explosion, the authors make the case that interbreeding between Neanderthals and homo sapiens led to the brain changes that initiated the Great Leap Forward of 40K to 50K years ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_L...ard_(evolution)

If people want to invoke ET influence here, either genetically or culturally, they can, but White Scientists don’t go there, understandably, and their theories may be the right ones, and outside intervention may not need to be invoked to explain those epochal events in the human journey. The interventionist theories have little or no support for them, but are on the order of myths and legends.

The authors of The 10,000 Year Explosion also speculate that the humans that migrated to New Guinea and Australia did not benefit from that interbreeding with Neanderthals, so those peoples were the most “primitive” humans on the planet when Europeans eventually encountered them. An Australian aborigine has brow ridges and a skull that is twice as thick as those of all other humans. Of course, with our bloody history of racism, this is a highly charged subject, and humanity cannot really objectively study itself, but scientists are trying, using the “just another species” mantra when they can.

As I stated earlier, African and Asian megafauna evolved alongside homo erectus and other protohumans for more than a million years, and learned to fear and avoid them.

Somewhere between 60K and 50K years ago, before The Great Leap Forward, humans arrived, probably by boat, to Australia. They did not have the extensive toolkit of Upper Paleolithic humans:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Paleolithic

but they had fire. At some time in our hoary past, humans began to use fire to transform the ecosystems, to make them human-friendlier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control...y_early_humans

As evolution never stops, the ecosystems evolved to adapt to the new variable. Some plants today thrive in environments that are regularly burned, and in fact some seeds will not germinate unless subjected to fire:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_ecology#Plants

Using fire to affect the ecosystems was humanity’s first great act of environmental impact. The Australian ecosystem is the first significant "virgin" one to face the impact of those intelligent bipeds, with weaponry and fire at hand. The invading humans drove all of the Australian megafauna to extinction in a few thousand years, and rampant burning of the vegetation may have been the primary culprit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_megafauna

A little over 40,000 years ago, a land bridge formed to Tasmania, and humans crossed and quickly drove the Tasmanian megafauna to extinction:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmani...ean_settlement

The rising oceans of this interglacial period isolated Tasmania from Australia, and the Tasmanian aborigines were isolated from the rest of humanity for 8,000 years, until the Europeans arrived and quickly drove them to extinction:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmani...ean_settlement

Of course, the Europeans were always excellent rapists, so plenty of Tasmanian DNA still exists in hybrid populations, but the last full-blood Tasmanian died in 1876, in less than a hundred years of British colonization.

I have to run to work now.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi Enishi:

Well met, and glad that you got something from my work.

I cite Ellen Brown’s Forbidden Medicine a few times in my medical racket essay, around what the FDA did to Jimmy Keller:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/medicine.htm#keller

There is good work going on out there, on many fronts, but energy is the big one, and I have been pouring my life’s energy into it for a very long time. Somebody has to do it, and I am trying to help something manifest that I have never seen before, but I know will be helpful if it appears and it may be critical (and engaged, aware, and comprehensive-thinking nucleus of people that may be able to create some harmonic effects in human awareness). This string of posts on my upcoming essay is probably not even halfway through what I plan to cover. I look back when I started it, and I said it would last a week:

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post516792

That is my usual foolishness, as we are now six weeks into it, and not quite halfway through with it. If nothing else, I think that the daunting scope of what I am taking on is becoming evident. I could not do the subjects justice if I spent my next five lifetimes on the task, but there is a method to my madness and what I hope to achieve with that essay.

I harbor some hope that this string of posts will help people begin to think comprehensively before I get that essay published.

Best,

Wade

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Hi:

My PM cache is full. I think that I can’t make or receive any more until I do some cleaning. I don’t read all of my PMs, I am sorry to say. I only have so much time, and I try to focus on this thread as best I can, in my “spare” time.

Best,

Wade