Connect with us

General

Prominent Yale Professor Explains How Darwin’s Theory of Evolution Doesn’t Match The Science

Avatar

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Darwin's Theory of Evolution has, for a great many scientists, become relatively obsolete in the face of new research into the creation and generation of life.

  • Reflect On:

    Can we see that the belief in the randomness of the creation and evolution of life, as posited by Darwin's Theory of Evolution, is a limitation on human progress and no longer serving us in our collective evolution?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

Science never ceases to question. When a theory is taught as an unquestionable fact, it should be quite obvious that something is wrong. Today, science isn’t really science, and this is not only true for topics such as evolution, it’s true in many areas where science is used for an agenda by powerful and corrupt forces.

advertisement - learn more

Health sciences are a great example. As Bud Relman, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine said, “The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.”

--> Become A CE Member: The only thing that keeps our journalism going is YOU. CE members get access to exclusive benefits and support our shared mission.. Click here to learn more!

Today, some scientific publications are silenced and others are pushed forward, depending on how they affect corporate and political agendas. It’s not actually about the science. What the mainstream media preaches as “settled science” is not actually settled. In fact it is often highly dubious. Why don’t more people see this? The answer is simple, it’s because we rely on outside sources to tell us ‘what is,’ instead of taking the time, as individual researchers, to really look into something.

The Theory Of Evolution

The ‘Theory of Evolution’ falls into this category. Scientists who have rejected the basic premises of Darwin’s theory continue to be condemned and shunned by the mainstream community and powerful people. This is because their paradigm-shifting thoughts and ideas on the subject, though more grounded in fact, threaten the goal of the global elite, which NSA whistleblower William Binney says, is “total population control.” The average person who gets a bachelor’s degree in science is trained to simply repeat the same old textbook rhetoric as to why evolution is the be all and end all of human existence, without actually looking into why the theory is highly questionable.

One of the latest dissenters is David Gelernter, a prominent scientist and distinguished professor of computer science at Yale University. He recently published an essay in the Claremont Review of Books explaining his objections to a premise behind Darwin’s theory.

He first points to the famous “Cambrian Explosion” which occurred half a billion years ago, in which a number of new organisms, including the first ever known animals, pop up suddenly in the fossil record over a period of approximately 70 million years. Apparently, this giant explosion of spontaneous life was followed by evolution, slow growth and “scanty fossils, mainly of single celled organisms, dating back to the origins of life roughly three and a half billions years ago.”

advertisement - learn more

From here, he explains how Darwin’s theory predicts that new life forms evolve gradually from preceding ones. but if this is applied to the Cambrian creatures as well, it doesn’t work. The predecessors to the Cambrian creatures are missing, something that Darwin himself was disturbed by as well. Furthermore, even without this fact, many scientists have already used other aspects of the fossil record to demonstrate that Darwin’s theory is clearly wrong.

The Cambrian explosion had been unearthed, and beneath those Cambrian creatures their Precambrian predecessors should have been waiting – and weren’t. In fact, the fossil record as a whole lacked the upward-branching structure Darwin predicted….the ever-expanding fossil archives don’t look good for Darwin, who made clear and concrete predictions that have (so far) been falsified—according to many reputable paleontologists, anyway. When does the clock run out on those predictions? Never. But any thoughtful person must ask himself whether scientists today are looking for evidence that bears on Darwin, or looking to explain away evidence that contradicts him. There are some of each. Scientists are only human, and their thinking (like everyone else’s) is colored by emotion. (source)

The Genesis Of New Life Forms

His next point goes a little deeper. Many people point to the fact that variation occurs naturally among individuals and different traits are past on, this is something observable and something that we all know. Many scientists actually use this point as a proof for evolution, which doesn’t make much sense. According to proponents of the theory of evolution, natural variation is the consequence of random change or mutation to cells, to the genetic information within our cells that deal with reproduction. These cells pass on genetic change to the next generation, which, according to Darwinians, changes the future of the species and not just the individual.

The engine behind this thought, as Gelernter explains, is ‘change’ driven by the survival of the fittest and, obviously, lots and lots of time. He then goes on to ask a very crucial question: What exactly does generating new forms of life entail? Many within the field agree that generating a new shape of protein is the key to it. But does Darwinian evolution even purport to be able to do that? For Chris Williams, A Ph.D., Biochemistry Ohio State University, the full scope of Darwinian Evolution barely touches upon this important matter:

As a biochemist and software developer who works in genetic and metabolic screening, I am continually amazed by the incredible complexity of life. For example, each of us has a vast ‘computer program’ of six billion DNA bases in every cell that guided our development from a fertilized egg, specifies how to make more than 200 tissue types, and ties all this together in numerous highly functional organ systems. Few people outside of genetics or biochemistry realize that evolutionists still can provide no substantive details at all about the origin of life, and particularly the origin of genetic information in the first self-replicating organism. What genes did it require — or did it even have genes? How much DNA and RNA did it have — or did it even have nucleic acids? How did huge information-rich molecules arise before natural selection? Exactly how did the genetic code linking nucleic acids to amino acid sequence originate? Clearly the origin of life — the foundation of evolution – is still virtually all speculation, and little if no fact.

Intelligent Design

More and more, the evidence points to the great intelligence apparent in the system of life-creation. The reason that Darwinian Evolution is being left behind, and for many is obsolete, is because it is completely based on random, non-intelligent processes. Edward Peltzer Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute), Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry, uses a clear real-life laboratory example to explain the need to posit the existence of an overriding ‘intelligence’ in order for things to make any sense:

As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry — and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.

Gelernter brings this conversation specifically to the generation of proteins:

Proteins are the special ops forces (or maybe the Marines) of living cells, except that they are common instead of rare; they do all the heavy lifting, all the tricky and critical assignments, in a dazzling range of roles. Proteins called enzymes catalyze all sorts of reactions and drive cellular metabolism. Other proteins (such as collagen) give cells shape and structure, like tent poles but in far more shapes. Nerve function, muscle function, and photosynthesis are all driven by proteins. And in doing these jobs and many others, the actual, 3-D shape of the protein molecule is important.

So, is the simple neo-Darwinian mechanism up to this task? Are random mutation plus natural selection sufficient to create new protein shapes?

Diving Into Proteins

Gelernter goes on to answer that question in great detail, and after going through the entire explanation he comes to what seems to be an inarguable conclusion. That the Theory of Evolution cannot, in any way, be a possible explanation for the generation of new proteins and mutations that are required for evolution to occur at all. This explanation is complex, but well worth it if you really want to understand how the ‘Theory of Evolution’ is refuted by the science of proteins:

How to make proteins is our first question. Proteins are chains: linear sequences of atom-groups, each bonded to the next. A protein molecule is based on a chain of amino acids; 150 elements is a “modest-sized” chain; the average is 250. Each link is chosen, ordinarily, from one of 20 amino acids. A chain of amino acids is a polypeptide—“peptide” being the type of chemical bond that joins one amino acid to the next. But this chain is only the starting point: chemical forces among the links make parts of the chain twist themselves into helices; others straighten out, and then, sometimes, jackknife repeatedly, like a carpenter’s rule, into flat sheets. Then the whole assemblage folds itself up like a complex sheet of origami paper. And the actual 3-D shape of the resulting molecule is (as I have said) important.

Imagine a 150-element protein as a chain of 150 beads, each bead chosen from 20 varieties. But: only certain chains will work. Only certain bead combinations will form themselves into stable, useful, well-shaped proteins.

So how hard is it to build a useful, well-shaped protein? Can you throw a bunch of amino acids together and assume that you will get something good? Or must you choose each element of the chain with painstaking care? It happens to be very hard to choose the right beads.

Inventing a new protein means inventing a new gene. (Enter, finally, genes, DNA etc., with suitable fanfare.) Genes spell out the links of a protein chain, amino acid by amino acid. Each gene is a segment of DNA, the world’s most admired macromolecule. DNA, of course, is the famous double helix or spiral staircase, where each step is a pair of nucleotides. As you read the nucleotides along one edge of the staircase (sitting on one step and bumping your way downwards to the next and the next), each group of three nucleotides along the way specifies an amino acid. Each three-nucleotide group is a codon, and the correspondence between codons and amino acids is the genetic code. (The four nucleotides in DNA are abbreviated T, A, C and G, and you can look up the code in a high school textbook: TTA and TTC stand for phenylalanine, TCT for serine, and so on.)

Your task is to invent a new gene by mutation—by the accidental change of one codon to a different codon. You have two possible starting points for this attempt. You could mutate an existing gene, or mutate gibberish. You have a choice because DNA actually consists of valid genes separated by long sequences of nonsense. Most biologists think that the nonsense sequences are the main source of new genes. If you tinker with a valid gene, you will almost certainly make it worse—to the point where its protein misfires and endangers (or kills) its organism—long before you start making it better. The gibberish sequences, on the other hand, sit on the sidelines without making proteins, and you can mutate them, so far as we know, without endangering anything. The mutated sequence can then be passed on to the next generation, where it can be mutated again. Thus mutations can accumulate on the sidelines without affecting the organism. But if you mutate your way to an actual, valid new gene, your new gene can create a new protein and thereby, potentially, play a role in evolution.

Mutations themselves enter the picture when DNA splits in half down the center of the staircase, thereby allowing the enclosing cell to split in half, and the encompassing organism to grow. Each half-staircase summons a matching set of nucleotides from the surrounding chemical soup; two complete new DNA molecules emerge. A mistake in this elegant replication process—the wrong nucleotide answering the call, a nucleotide typo—yields a mutation, either to a valid blueprint or a stretch of gibberish.

Building a Better Protein

Now at last we are ready to take Darwin out for a test drive. Starting with 150 links of gibberish, what are the chances that we can mutate our way to a useful new shape of protein? We can ask basically the same question in a more manageable way: what are the chances that a random 150-link sequence will create such a protein? Nonsense sequences are essentially random. Mutations are random. Make random changes to a random sequence and you get another random sequence. So, close your eyes, make 150 random choices from your 20 bead boxes and string up your beads in the order in which you chose them. What are the odds that you will come up with a useful new protein?

It’s easy to see that the total number of possible sequences is immense. It’s easy to believe (although non-chemists must take their colleagues’ word for it) that the subset of useful sequences—sequences that create real, usable proteins—is, in comparison, tiny. But we must know how immense and how tiny.

The total count of possible 150-link chains, where each link is chosen separately from 20 amino acids, is 20150. In other words, many. 20150 roughly equals 10195, and there are only 1080 atoms in the universe.

What proportion of these many polypeptides are useful proteins? Douglas Axe did a series of experiments to estimate how many 150-long chains are capable of stable folds—of reaching the final step in the protein-creation process (the folding) and of holding their shapes long enough to be useful. (Axe is a distinguished biologist with five-star breeding: he was a graduate student at Caltech, then joined the Centre for Protein Engineering at Cambridge. The biologists whose work Meyer discusses are mainly first-rate Establishment scientists.) He estimated that, of all 150-link amino acid sequences, 1 in 1074 will be capable of folding into a stable protein. To say that your chances are 1 in 1074 is no different, in practice, from saying that they are zero. It’s not surprising that your chances of hitting a stable protein that performs some useful function, and might therefore play a part in evolution, are even smaller. Axe puts them at 1 in 1077.

In other words: immense is so big, and tiny is so small, that neo-Darwinian evolution is—so far—a dead loss. Try to mutate your way from 150 links of gibberish to a working, useful protein and you are guaranteed to fail. Try it with ten mutations, a thousand, a million—you fail. The odds bury you. It can’t be done.

Proteins/Mutations Are One of Several Issues

Despite all of the scientific dogma that plagues this issue, proteins/mutations and lack of fossil evidence are simply the tip of the iceberg when it comes to finding faults found within the Theory of Evolution. There are many facts, information, science and new discoveries that would make one wonder how it’s even still being taught.

Furthermore, despite the fact that we get pounded with the idea that random mutation is ultimate truth within the mainstream, and that one is wrong for questioning it, there are a number of prominent scientists, who are actually getting together in large numbers to collectively refute Darwinism. A group of 500 scientists from several fields came together a few years to create “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism,” as one examples. The issue is that these scientists are never getting any mainstream attention. But clearly there are some very intelligent people here.

The theory will be with us for a long time, exerting enormous cultural force. Darwin is no Newton. Newton’s physics survived Einstein and will always survive, because it explains the cases that dominate all of space-time except for the extreme ends of the spectrum, at the very smallest and largest scales. It’s just these most important cases, the ones we see all around us, that Darwin cannot explain. Yet his theory does explain cases of real significance. And Darwin’s intellectual daring will always be inspiring. The man will always be admired.

He now poses a final challenge. Whether biology will rise to this last one as well as it did to the first, when his theory upset every apple cart, remains to be seen. How cleanly and quickly can the field get over Darwin, and move on?—with due allowance for every Darwinist’s having to study all the evidence for himself? There is one of most important questions facing science in the 21st century.

Other Examples That Throw Off The Theory Of Evolution

Not long ago I wrote about a  recent paper published by 33 scientists in the Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology journal suggesting that the flourishing of life during the Cambrian era (Cambrian Explosion) originates from the stars is so fascinating.

“With the rapidly increasing number of exoplanets that have been discovered in the habitable zones of long-lived red dwarf stars (Gillon et al., 2016), the prospects for genetic exchanges between life-bearing Earth-like planets cannot be ignored. ” (The study)

There is a great little blurb from Cosmos Magazine, one of the few outlets who are talking about the study:

With 33 authors from a wide range of reputable universities and research institutes, the paper makes a seemingly incredible claim. A claim that if true, would have the most profound consequences for our understanding of the universe. Life, the paper argues, did not originate on the planet Earth.

The response?

Near silence.

The reasons for this are as fascinating as the evidence and claims advanced by the paper itself. Entitled “Cause of the Cambrian Explosion – Terrestrial or Cosmic?”, the publication revives a controversial idea concerning the origin of life, an idea stretching back to Ancient Greece, known as ‘panspermia.a’.

Academics like Francis Crick, an English scientist who co-discovered the structure of the DNA molecule (alongside James D. Watson), argues that there is no possible way that the DNA molecule could have originated on Earth. The generally accepted theory in this field, as explained above, is that we are the result of a bunch of molecules accidentally bumping into each other, creating life. However, according to Crick, we are the result of what is now known as Directed Panspermia. Crick and British chemist Leslie Orgel published their paper on it in July of 1973, hinting that we were brought here by chance, or by some sort of intelligence from somewhere else in the universe.

This is interesting, because then you can get into the lore of creation stories that exists within ancient cultures from around the world, one would be our relation to, for example, what many indigenous culture refer to as the ‘Star People.’

I’m not even going to go into all of the strange skeletal remains that have been completely left out of the record, like the remains of giants, for example.

The Takeaway

The agenda for the maintenance of the neo-Darwinian version of the ‘Theory of Evolution’ was nothing less than to move people away from the notion of an intelligent creator and towards a perception founded in scientific materialism. In this way, those who funded and controlled scientific activity on the planet would have tremendous power.

Darwin’s theory may have served humanity for a certain phase of our own evolution, but now it is holding us back. It’s time for all of us to pierce more deeply into an understanding of the nature of the creation of life if we are to become creators ourselves by studying the current evidence. As the group of 500 scientists asked, ‘How cleanly and quickly can the field get over Darwin, and move on?—with due allowance for every Darwinist’s having to study all the evidence for himself?’

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

General

Epstein Victim Among 34 Suing Pornhub For Posting Videos Of Her Being Abused At Age 10

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 9 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    34 women are suing Pornhub for posting non-consensual pornographic videos of them being abused as children. One claims she was raped by a ring of Hollywood men and financial elites like Jeffrey Epstein since the age of 7. Pornhub calls claims absurd.

  • Reflect On:

    How prevalent is child sex trafficking among the financial elite and others in positions of "power" ?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

34 women have come together and accused Pornhub, a parent company of MindGeek, a Canadian based company that primarily focuses on pornography, of allowing “trafficked, illegal content” to be distributed on the site. Affiliates, like Visa, are also implicated in the suit. The plaintiffs state that this is a “case about rape, not pornography” and that it’s a “case about the rape and sexual exploitation of children” as well as men and women. They claim that the defendants knowingly and intentionally capitalized and profited from “the horrendous exploitation and abuse of tens of thousands of other human beings.”

Not only did these defendants allow users to populate MindGeek’s platform with non-consensual content, and restore the non-consensual content of those users when removed, they also acquired and populated the MindGeek platform with their own non-consensual content. The MindGeek defendants frequently purchased in bulk trafficked content from known trafficking areas such as Eastern Europe, Asia, and South America. In doing so, they used third-parties to upload that content in a way that made it look like user uploaded content. In executing this scheme, MindGeek used its byzantine international corporate structure of hundreds of sham shell corporations to mask the process and launder the payments.

One of the claims include allegations from a woman named as “Jane Doe No.1” who says she was unable to have seven explicit videos of herself removed from Porn hub. At the time, the videos of her were made under duress when she was a child and a victim of child sex trafficking. The woman claims that from age seven she was trafficked for more than 21 years.

No. 1 was raped, trafficked, and exploited by a ring of Hollywood men and New York financiers, including Jeffrey Epstein. These interactions were often recorded and since no later than 2007 have been widely and continuously distributed on Pornhub.

The claim that “interactions were often recorded” does corroborate with other information and claims we’ve reported on. For example, Christopher Mason, a  TV host and journalist/reporter has gone on record stating he was told Epstein rigged his multiple homes with cameras and kept tapes of everyone/everything. He says Ghislaine Maxwell has access to this footage.

In an interview with Zev Shalev, former CBS News executive producer and award-winning investigative journalist for Narativ, the former senior executive for Israel’s Directorate of Military Intelligence, Ari Ben-Menashe, claimed to not only have met Jeffrey Epstein and his alleged madame Ghislaine Maxwell, back in the 1980s, but that both Epstein and Maxwell were already working with Israeli intelligence during that time period, running a possible sexual blackmail operation. This type of thing has long been a tactic used by intelligence agencies, as well as the American mafia.

This kind of stuff is all over the place, and the theme involves high ranking people. As a paper published in European Psychiatry details:

Research eventually led to the Franklin scandal that broke in 1989 when hundreds of children were apparently flown around the US to be abused by high ranking ‘Establishment’ members. Former state senator John W DeCamp, cited as one of the most effective legislators in Nebraska history, is today attorney for two of the abuse victims. A 15 year old girl disclosed that she had been abused since the age of 9 and was exposed since the age of 9 and was exposed to ‘ritual murder’ of a new born girl, a small boy (who was subsequently fried and eaten) and three others.

But I digress, you can dive deeper into the possibility of Epstein and Maxwell using child trafficking to blackmail and entrap powerful people, here if interested.

Back to MindGeek,

Appropriately dubbed, “The Monsanto of Porn,” MindGeek is a classic criminal enterprise carried out through wide-ranging criminal activities, including, but not limited to, human trafficking; child pornography; criminal copyright piracy; internet hacking, stalking, and doxing; blackmail and extortion; mail and wire fraud; embezzlement, bank and creditor fraud; tax evasion; and money laundering. The company’s top management and shadowy international financiers and their investors are the “bosses” of this Enterprise and, together with their “capos,” run its rackets and schemes.

MindGeek has responded to the allegations, stating that

“Pornhub has zero tolerance for illegal content and investigates any complaint or allegation made about content on our platforms. The allegation in today’s complaint that Pornhub is a criminal enterprise that traffics women and is run like ‘The Sopranos’ are utterly absurd, completely reckless and categorically false.”

What brought this issue to light for many people is The Traffickinghub campaign. It’s a movement founded by Laila Mickelwait and powered by the anti-trafficking organization Exodus Cry. It’s a non-religious, non-partisan effort to hold Pornhub accountable for enabling and profiting off of the mass sex-trafficking and exploitation of women and minors. The campaign is supported by a broad spectrum of over 300 child protection, anti-trafficking, and women’s rights organizations, as well as experts and trafficking survivors of all backgrounds.

The Traffickinghub started a petition to create more awareness. It now has well over 2.5 million signatures and reads as follows:

Pornhub, the world’s largest and most popular porn site, has been repeatedly caught enabling, hosting, and profiting from videos of child rape, sex trafficking, and other forms of non-consensual content exploiting women and minors. We’re calling for Pornhub to be shut down and its executives held accountable for these crimes.

If you have been victimized on Pornhub or any Mindgeek owned website and want help click here. Media inquiries can be directed to Lailamickelwait@traffickinghub.com

In the last few months, there have been several shocking cases of sex trafficking and child rape films that were hosted on Pornhub. A 15-year-old girl who had been missing for a year was finally found after her mother was tipped off that her daughter was being featured in videos on the site — 58 such videos of her rape and sexual abuse were discovered on Pornhub.

Her trafficker, who was seen in the videos raping the child, was identified using surveillance footage of him at a 7-Eleven where he was spotted with his victim. He is now facing a felony charge.

Also in recent news was the case of 22 women who were deceived and coerced by Michael Pratt, owner of GirlsDoPorn, into performing sex acts on film that were subsequently uploaded to Pornhub. These women sued GirlsDoPorn and won a $12.7 million lawsuit against the company. According to a federal indictment, Pratt and his co-conspirators produced filmed child rape and sexual abuse content and trafficked a minor. Pratt reportedly fled the United States for New Zealand and is currently wanted on a federal warrant.

But there are other individuals who should also be wanted by law enforcement — CEO Feras Antoon and COO David Tassillo of Mindgeek, the company that owns Pornhub.

You see, Pornhub is complicit in the trafficking of these women and minors and probably thousands more like them.

Pornhub is generating millions in advertising and membership revenue with 42 billion visits and 6 million videos uploaded per year. Yet it has no system in place to verify reliably the age or consent of those featured in the pornographic content it hosts and profits from.

In fact, all that is needed to upload pornography onto Pornhub is an email address. No government-issued ID is required, not even to become “verified” with its trusty blue checkmark that makes everything seem a-OK.

I know this, because I tried it.

It took me under 10 minutes to create a user account and upload blank test content to the site, which went live instantly. I could have then gone on to become Pornhub-verified, and all I would need to do is send a photo of myself holding a paper with my username. That’s it.

It is no surprise that Pornhub admitted to verifying the trafficked 15-year-old girl who was sexually abused in 58 videos on its site. The official Twitter account for Pornhub wrote in response to the breaking story that the 15-year-old girl had been a verified member. After quickly realizing it had just admitted to assisting in her being trafficked, the account deleted the tweets, but the evidence of the admission was cached and still exists.

One of the most-searched terms on Pornhub is “teen” pornography, in fact it has been a top ten search term on the site for six consecutive years. The search will result in videos that are constantly being added faster than any individual could watch them. Many feature girls who look 13 years old at best — girls with braces, pigtails, flat chests, no makeup, extremely young faces, holding teddy bears and licking lollipops, all while being aggressively penetrated. A quick search for the word “teen” turns up titles such as “Young Girl Tricked,” “Innocent Brace Faced Tiny Teen F—ed,” “Tiny Petite Thai Teen,” “Teen Little Girl First Time,” on and on ad infinitum.

Pornhub has no reliable system in place to verify that those in the videos it hosts are not trafficked children being raped on film in order to line the pockets of its executives.

Recently the Internet Watch Foundation stated that it alone had confirmed 118 cases of child rape, sexual abuse and trafficking on Pornhub—half of the videos were Category A level abuse which is the worst kinds of abuse.

What all of this means is that at this very moment, there could be hundreds, if not thousands, of videos of underage sex trafficking victims on Pornhub. We already have evidence, and it is just the tip of the iceberg.

It’s time to shut down super-predator site Pornhub and hold the executives behind it accountable.

The Traffickinghub campaign is a non-religious, non-partisan effort to hold the largest porn website in the world accountable for enabling and profiting off of the mass sex trafficking and exploitation of women and minors. The campaign is supported by over 300 child protection and anti-trafficking organizations as well as experts on and survivors of commercial sexual exploitation.

You can go to www.traffickinghub.com to learn more.

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading

General

The Bigger Pandemic Is The Financial Crisis – What’s The Solution?

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 1 minute read

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

During COVID, it is no secret that the world’s economy has suffered. Regardless of what markets might say or what PR comes from any current administration, the average person is not doing well. People are losing jobs, savings, their business, and their houses.

In response, we consistently hear the same rhetoric: “It will recover,” “we need more jobs,” “we’ll build, back, better,” “Raise minimum wage.” And while some of these things are going to be helpful in the short run, it’s truly the long run that we have to be discussing.

We need to start thinking outside the box.

In this week’s Setty Report, we seek to explore a solution to our existing global financial problems. But in order to get there, we have to first understand what the problem is, and why we can’t solve it with ‘inside the box thinking.

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading

Exopolitics

French Space Agency Releases Information About UFOs: 600 Cases Over 64 Years

Gautam Peddada

Published

on

By

10 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The French counterpart of the UAP Task Force who reports to the France's Space Agency offers a detailed analysis of 600 UFO cases over 64 years.

  • Reflect On:

    Why, after decades of study, encounters and what seems to be an official ridicule campaign are governments admitting that the phenomenon is very real?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

Reporting to France’s Space Agency (CNES) is a little-known unit that investigates the unidentified aerial phenomenon and makes its findings public. GEIPAN stands for Groupe d’Études et d’Informations sur les Phénomènes Aérospatiaux Non-identifiés (unidentified aerospace phenomenon research and information group)

While everyone is focused on the American version of the study, which will contain over 120 events, GEIPAN has released a report that covers over 600 recorded incidents by pilots over a 64-year period. The paper concentrates on 290 of these incidents when the unidentified aerial device had (or may have had) an impact on flight safety.

While the study has received little attention, there are several data points that are essential in establishing or verifying particular aspects of the phenomena. It will be fascinating to see if the DNI’s report to Congress has comparable results, or if they will disclose these findings in the public realm.

1952 & 1954 — The Peak Years

The distribution of the 600 cases by year reveals that 320 instances (53%) occurred over a 16-year period (from 1946 to 1960), with 275 cases (46%) occurring between 1950 and 1957. The year with the most instances (83 cases) was 1952, followed by 1954 with 40 cases. The years 1952 in the United States and 1954 in Europe are regarded as the two peak years for UAP sightings.

There is no discernible seasonal trend in the distribution of these 600 cases per month. July has the most instances (75) compared to the other months, and April has the fewest cases (29). The remaining 10 months had between 42 and 56 instances, which does not appear to be a substantial difference.

Witnesses failed to indicate the time of day in 38 cases (6 percent). Out of the remaining 562 occurrences, 305 (54%) occurred at night and 257 (46%) occurred during the day.

A Global Phenomenon

The 600 instances are almost universally dispersed. They are positioned over continental zones (564 in total), encompassing 56 nations, as well as above marine zones (36 cases). The American continent (North, Central, and South America) had 376 cases (58 percent), with North America having 298 instances (Canada and USA). 108 instances have been reported above Europe, with 33 of them occurring in French airspace.

Witness Credibility — Pilots Only

The UAP sightings recorded by military pilots are the most common among the 600 occurrences documented during a 64-year period: 251 instances (42 percent ). Commercial pilots reported 233 instances (39%), while private pilots recorded 105 cases (18 percent ).

When the latter section of the time range investigated (1990 to 2010) is included, the outcome is completely different. The commercial aircraft instances are the most frequent of the 70: 49 in total (70 percent ). Military pilots reported 12 instances (17 percent), while private pilots reported 9 cases (13 percent ). This, I believe, is related to the secrecy that armies throughout the world have taken when it comes to disclosing UAP sightings.

A thorough study of the distribution of military aircraft cases by year reveals that 75% of them (189 instances) happened during a 14-year period (from 1946 for 1959). The majority of these instances were military cases from the 1950s, and numerous official records from that time period were declassified in the years that followed (U.S. Air Force Projects Sign, Grudge, and Blue Book).

In 141 cases (24%), almost a quarter of the 600 cases, the phenomenon was observed from two or more aircraft in flight.

There were two or more eyewitnesses in 415 incidents (69 percent). The pilot or co-pilot was the lone witness in 185 incidents (31%). The findings reveal that in more than two-thirds of the 600 cases, there were two or more witnesses.

Flight Characteristics & Radar Detection

The distribution of incidents by flight phase reveals that the vast majority of sightings happened when the aircraft was in cruise flight. It should be noted that the pilot has more time to look at the sky during this phase of flight because the aircraft is frequently on autopilot. Pilots, on the other hand, focus their attention on flying and flight instruments throughout the other four phases of flight.

Radar-Visual (RV) sightings are classified into three types: (1) detection by ground radar, (2) detection by airborne radar (AR), and (3) detection by both ground radar and aerial radar (AGR). When ground control checks but does not detect any targets on the radar display and cannot corroborate the visual sighting, a fourth category (NR) occurs.

Among the 600 cases chosen, a radar check (positive or negative) was performed in 278 (46%) of them, and the findings are as follows:

Positive radar detection (GR+AR+AGR) 162 cases (27% of 600 cases)
Negative radar detection (NR) 115 cases

It’s worth noting that the proportion of positive radar detection (27%) is precisely the same as the result of a prior research of 300 instances.

The visual observation of the event was verified by both airborne and ground radar in 34 (21%) cases.

Example: On a landing approach, the co-pilot of a Caravelle spotted five or six lights off the right wing tip that followed the aircraft on a parallel track. He inquired with the air traffic controller if there were any other planes on final approach. ATC provided a negative response but confirmed that there was a radar echo on the right of the aircraft that followed it. The lights vanished off the right wing tip and reappeared off the left wing tip. The pilot activated the autopilot and examined the on-board radar, which revealed an echo to the left.

Simultaneously, the air traffic controller reported that the unknown echo had moved to the left of the Caravelle. (Case: 1352, France 1979)

Radar-visual cases are very important and interesting for two reasons: (1) they confirm the visual testimony of the pilot and/or the crew by a technical record of the phenomenon; (2) and sometimes they give technical measures like speed, altitude or trajectory of the UAP.

Example: The crew of a B-757 noticed a black cigar-shaped wingless object below their aircraft off to the right, around 15–20 miles away. Tacoma’s NORAD/WASD (Western Air Defence Sector) HQ has an unclear track. It looked to be motionless at first, then surged in a burst of speed for 20 to 30 seconds before coming to a complete halt. It lingered for one and a half minutes before accelerating again in a burst of speed. This was done many times during a four-minute period, after which the target vanished. The calculated speed was between 1000 and 1400 mph.

(Case:1266 USA 1995)

The Phenomenon

Pilots classify the things they see into two categories: “light” points and “objects,” which have a “solid” appearance. UAP reported by pilots and crews is described as having a material or three-dimensional, solid aspect in over three-quarters of the instances (74 percent). UAP is described as solid, although it is most commonly reported as “objects,” which come in a variety of forms. The most commonly reported forms are round (or elliptical) with a metallic appearance (sphere, silvery disc, etc). Meanwhile, several additional forms were noticed, some of which were quite odd and contradictory to traditional aerodynamic designs.

Examples: Two yellow objects shaped like hamburgers (Case 1149, USA 1980); a black cylindrical object 24 feet long and nine feet wide (Case 1123, Italy 1979); a giant triagle-shaped with intense lights joining the edges (Case 1113, Chile 1978); a long brown cigar-shaped object (Case 1050, Portugal 1976); an airliner fuselage without any wings or tail and with potholes lighted from inside (Case 1347, France 1985); an elliptical shape, flat below and slightly domed on the upper part (Case 1245, Sahara 1965); a large elliptical object looking like a metallic mushroom, which at times appeared to be translucent and seemed to have a transparent glass-line dome (Case 556, Australia 1954).

In more than two third of the 600 selected cases (474 cases — 78%) the witnesses have reported only one UAP.

In 117 cases (20%), pilots reported sightings of two or more UAP. In 12 cases, groups of more than 10 UAP were observed at the same time.

A pilot recorded the lowest estimated altitude as 500 feet. Major Joe Walker, who was piloting the X-15 rocket propelled aircraft on a test flight at more than 2000 mph when his rear view movie camera caught five disc-shaped cylindrical objects flying in echelon formation, reported the greatest UAP height of 246,000 feet. (Case 854, April 1964).

Interaction

Interaction cases are those in which the UAP appears to react to the presence of an aircraft. Interactions between UAP and aircraft were observed in 299 instances (almost 50%). These cases are about the following events: (1) UAP conducts manoeuvres to approach, chase, or escape from the aircraft; (2) dogfights with military aircraft; and (3) UAP circles or performs manoeuvres near to the aircraft. This category includes reports of electromagnetic impacts on aviation systems.

The phenomena approached the aeroplane on a collision path in 78 occasions, and there was a near-collision with the aircraft in six more. The pilot was required to take evasive action in 31 occasions to avoid colliding with the UAP, including three cases (all commercial aircraft incidents) in which passengers were wounded during the move.

In 59 of the incidents, the UAP circled or moved close to the aircraft. This sort of occurrence has the most reports (20 cases) of suspected electro-magnetic impacts on aviation equipment, particularly for commercial (8 cases) and private aircraft (8 cases).

Aggressive Tic-Tacs

In terms of events that may have an influence on flight safety, the most common kind reported by commercial pilots is “UAP approaches aircraft on a collision course,” with a total of 38 instances. The pilots claimed that the “UAP circles aircraft and/or moves close to aircraft” in 24 occasions. Pilots most commonly reported claimed electromagnetic impacts on their aircraft systems during this sort of occurrence. In 15 cases, the pilot had to take evasive action to avoid a collision with the object that resulted in passengers injured in three cases.

Example: The three crew members of a B747–300 saw an extremely rapid white rocket-like object overflowing their plane between 200 and 400 feet above in the opposite direction. The item, which they characterised as cylindrical, lacked a wing. There was no TCAS warning. The object flew just above their head. It was close enough that the flight officer lowered his head, fearing it might strike them. It was white and spherical in form. There was no apparent smoke or flames coming from the item. ARTCC observed no radar echo in the aircraft’s opposite direction. The National Transportation Safety Board has reached no judgments on the identify of the object, but the matter is considered closed. (Case 1293, USA 1997)

Private aircraft instances with potential influence on flight safety account for the majority of the cases, accounting for 34 of the 65 cases in which pilots reported claimed Electro-magnetic impacts on aircraft systems: Instances involving private aircraft account for 54% of all cases (compared with commercial aircraft cases: 15% and military aircraft cases: 27%).

Electro-Magnetic Effects

The most troublesome element of UAP contacts appears to be situations in which permanent or transitory electromagnetic impacts occurred on aircraft systems during flight, either directly or indirectly as a result of the relatively close presence of one or more UAP.

In 81 of the 600 chosen cases, claimed electromagnetic interference was seen and reported (14%). Everything from radios to weaponry was impacted.

Readers should remember this information and realise that studies that have gone to great efforts to assist us in figuring out the nature of the UAP enigma already exist.

They’ve been studied by reputable organisations staffed by qualified scientists and professionals.

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Elevate your inbox and get conscious articles sent directly to your inbox!

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!