Evidence of cooking 780,000 years ago rewrites human history

a reply to: Hanslune

I did not say every single block is cast, you keep showing me that same wall segment over and over again.


Lets just agree to disagree, i believe they were done in an efficient and smart way.

You think they were cut dragged and lifted by jewish slaves like in some disney/bible story, using some sort of ramp or crane that would have needed all the wood from the amazon.

a reply to: Harte

The ancient Egyptians were obviously idiots!

originally posted by: XipeTotex
And since i am the only one answering questions, tell me how to make a giant statue with magnetic anomalies in the nose, or belly for example? Or in a single glyph? I know the answer, but i want to hear about how you think they are pounded in to place with a chisel or something.

Please tell us wtf you're talking about here and stop making unevidenced claims.
Many stones are magnetic, including basalt.
Magnetism, like static electricity, will show different strengths depending on the shape of the magnet.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: XipeTotex
And since i am the only one answering questions, tell me how to make a giant statue with magnetic anomalies in the nose, or belly for example? Or in a single glyph? I know the answer, but i want to hear about how you think they are pounded in to place with a chisel or something.

Please tell us wtf you're talking about here and stop making unevidenced claims.
Many stones are magnetic, including basalt.
Magnetism, like static electricity, will show different strengths depending on the shape of the magnet.

Harte

Do message me again after you have done some catching up on the finer details of the ancient statues.

originally posted by: XipeTotex

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: XipeTotex

As for the quarries, i dont know what to tell you, an exceptionally talented scientist says it does not hold up under closer inspection, many of the pyramid stones do not match the stones of the quarry.

If the stones were made out of reconstituted, crushed, rocks then none of them would match any rock in any quarry, either in terms of stratification or chemical composition. You wouldn't need to be a geologist to readily see the difference.

Oddly, however, none of the geologists, who have been able to determine exactly which quarries the various stones originated from, have noticed this.

Not to mention that any fossils (which you can clearly see in the blocks... I've been there. I've seen them) didn't get crushed up for this "geopolymer."

Gathering large amounts of fossils is easy, even easier to throw them in to the mixing pot, why? there could be many reasons, added structures, symbolic act, could be anything.

Have you heard the saying that a "house has good bones" people used to throw in bones in mortar because it makes it strong, also for good luck.

The matter that knocks a big hole in that argument is the distribution of the fossils as well as the sheer number of them.

In a concrete slurry, the fossils will be somewhat uniformly distributed. In the Giza limestone, this is clearly not the case -- certain groups are only in one layer and not in others. As the temperature of the water and the salinity changed the size of the microfossils changes. In order to get the same effect, the ancient Egyptians would have had to build a mold the size of the Giza plateau (because the stones match the Giza plateau), then fill the first 1/4th inch with one geopolymer layer and let it harden. And it has to be uneven because the layers there are not even.

Then they'd have to mix up a new geopolymer layer with a slightly different type of microfossil and a little bit different composition and put that down on top of the first one (but not making it the same height... so instead of 1/4th inch it might be 1/8th inch.) They would have to continue this process (and make sure the same sort of fossil was in each layer (ditto the larger ones that appear only occasionally and not in enough quantities to strengthen or weaken the stone)).

They have to fill and cure this block after pouring enough of these tiny layers to make a landscape feature the size of today's Giza plateau

Then they have to come in and hack along the edge to get hundreds of thousands of blocks -- each one of them a different size than the next.

Then they have to assemble it into a pyramid shape.

AFTER they invent the geopolymer recipe (and then forget it and kill anyone whoever knew about it or worked with it because no other pyramid/structure/temple is ever mentioned as being made of this geopolymer).


Oh...and some of the layers in the pyramid (along with the fossils) also have to match the layers and the fossils in the Great Sphinx.

And they have to be slanted (not level)

Ta ke a gander at the cross-section of the plateau here. Figure 2

originally posted by: XipeTotex

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: XipeTotex
And since i am the only one answering questions, tell me how to make a giant statue with magnetic anomalies in the nose, or belly for example? Or in a single glyph? I know the answer, but i want to hear about how you think they are pounded in to place with a chisel or something.

Please tell us wtf you're talking about here and stop making unevidenced claims.
Many stones are magnetic, including basalt.
Magnetism, like static electricity, will show different strengths depending on the shape of the magnet.

Harte

Do message me again after you have done some catching up on the finer details of the ancient statues.

Sure.
So, you got nothing, as expected.
Harte

originally posted by: XipeTotex

Do message me again after you have done some catching up on the finer details of the ancient statues.

So you conceded you made up nonsense. Okay we expected that.

Do message us again after you have done some catching up on the finer details of having a debate and not acting like a child. Chuckle!

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: XipeTotex

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: XipeTotex

As for the quarries, i dont know what to tell you, an exceptionally talented scientist says it does not hold up under closer inspection, many of the pyramid stones do not match the stones of the quarry.

If the stones were made out of reconstituted, crushed, rocks then none of them would match any rock in any quarry, either in terms of stratification or chemical composition. You wouldn't need to be a geologist to readily see the difference.

Oddly, however, none of the geologists, who have been able to determine exactly which quarries the various stones originated from, have noticed this.

Not to mention that any fossils (which you can clearly see in the blocks... I've been there. I've seen them) didn't get crushed up for this "geopolymer."

Gathering large amounts of fossils is easy, even easier to throw them in to the mixing pot, why? there could be many reasons, added structures, symbolic act, could be anything.

Have you heard the saying that a "house has good bones" people used to throw in bones in mortar because it makes it strong, also for good luck.

The matter that knocks a big hole in that argument is the distribution of the fossils as well as the sheer number of them.

In a concrete slurry, the fossils will be somewhat uniformly distributed. In the Giza limestone, this is clearly not the case -- certain groups are only in one layer and not in others. As the temperature of the water and the salinity changed the size of the microfossils changes. In order to get the same effect, the ancient Egyptians would have had to build a mold the size of the Giza plateau (because the stones match the Giza plateau), then fill the first 1/4th inch with one geopolymer layer and let it harden. And it has to be uneven because the layers there are not even.

Then they'd have to mix up a new geopolymer layer with a slightly different type of microfossil and a little bit different composition and put that down on top of the first one (but not making it the same height... so instead of 1/4th inch it might be 1/8th inch.) They would have to continue this process (and make sure the same sort of fossil was in each layer (ditto the larger ones that appear only occasionally and not in enough quantities to strengthen or weaken the stone)).

They have to fill and cure this block after pouring enough of these tiny layers to make a landscape feature the size of today's Giza plateau

Then they have to come in and hack along the edge to get hundreds of thousands of blocks -- each one of them a different size than the next.

Then they have to assemble it into a pyramid shape.

AFTER they invent the geopolymer recipe (and then forget it and kill anyone whoever knew about it or worked with it because no other pyramid/structure/temple is ever mentioned as being made of this geopolymer).


Oh...and some of the layers in the pyramid (along with the fossils) also have to match the layers and the fossils in the Great Sphinx.

And they have to be slanted (not level)

Ta ke a gander at the cross-section of the plateau here. Figure 2

Thanks

Excellent write up and yes it is far easier to pretend to solve problems by making stuff up than it is to do so in the real world and deal with the complexities of geology.

a reply to: Hanslune

Sip , ..........Hmm.... This Thread Needs More Salt ....

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Hanslune

Sip , ..........Hmm.... This Thread Needs More Salt ....

Indeed!

Ah and perhaps a dose of savoury, pepper and bit of thyme.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Hanslune

Sip , ..........Hmm.... This Thread Needs More Salt ....

Just dont add any more bible or disney and it should be fine.

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: XipeTotex

Do message me again after you have done some catching up on the finer details of the ancient statues.

So you conceded you made up nonsense. Okay we expected that.

Do message us again after you have done some catching up on the finer details of having a debate and not acting like a child. Chuckle!

You really dont know about the magnetic anomalies in olmec statues for example?

Spoiler alert, the mainstream explanation is that the rocks were struck by lighting,

originally posted by: XipeTotex

You really dont know about the magnetic anomalies in olmec statues for example?

Yes, I had heard of them but we were discussing mainly Egyptian masonry. When you mention something either explain it or link to it don't assume we can read minds. The reason I didn't think it was that as it has nothing to do with masonry and is probably natural and or utilization of a natural property by an unknown method of detection.

Curiomos again - it really isn't a great source.

This one is a bit better; www.popularmechanics.com...

The original paper: www.sciencedirect.com...

The apparently intentional colocation of carved anatomical features and pre-existing magnetized regions implies that the sculptors were able to detect the presence of anomalous magnetic fields, which may have been facilitated by lodestones similar to iron oxide artifacts and iron-ore mirrors. Our observations strengthen the case for an awareness of magnetism in the ancient New World.

Cool

Okay what are you wowed about? What does it have to do with Evidence of cooking 780,000 years ago rewrites human history or do you think it just neatl?

If you do you might want to read about the Olmec lodestone called M-160 pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

originally posted by: XipeTotex

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: XipeTotex

Do message me again after you have done some catching up on the finer details of the ancient statues.

So you conceded you made up nonsense. Okay we expected that.

Do message us again after you have done some catching up on the finer details of having a debate and not acting like a child. Chuckle!

You really dont know about the magnetic anomalies in olmec statues for example?

Spoiler alert, the mainstream explanation is that the rocks were struck by lighting,

The basalt bed they were carved from WAS struck by lightning.
These are not "anomalies." They are easily explained - as you can see by simply reading the abstract to the paper at this link.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte
...
The fact that the idiot narrator brings up the old trope "the missing link" - a thing which does not (and cannot) even exist tells the whole story about the ignorance on display in the vid.

Then why all the media anouncements concerning so-called "missing links"?

...

ANNOUNCEMENTS OF “MISSING LINKS”

Fact: The media often widely broadcasts the announcement that a new “missing link” has been discovered. For example, in 2009 a fossil dubbed Ida was unveiled with what one journal called “rock-star hype.”43 Publicity included this headline in The Guardian newspaper of the United Kingdom (UK): “Fossil Ida: Extraordinary Find Is ‘Missing Link’ in Human Evolution.”44 However, just days later, the UK science journal New Scientist said: “Ida is not a ‘missing link’ in human evolution.”45

Question: Why is each unveiling of a new “missing link” given wide media attention, whereas the removal of that fossil from the “family tree” is hardly mentioned?

Answer: Regarding those who make these discoveries, Robin Derricourt, quoted earlier, says: “The leader of a research team may need to over-emphasize the uniqueness and drama of a ‘discovery’ in order to attract research funding from outside the conventional academic sources, and they will certainly be encouraged in this by the print and electronic media, looking for a dramatic story.”46

Source: QUESTION 4: Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor? (The Origin of Life​—Five Questions Worth Asking)

Talking about those who use that term, "missing link", or have used it in the past (as history seems to repeat itself)...

More Missing Than Links (1954)

...

In evolution’s chain there are so many thousands of links missing that there is no proof a chain even exists. But to limit ourselves to the links between ape and men, consider the facts on the shattered Piltdown man. In 1908 a small piece of skull was found in a gravel pit at Piltdown in Sussex County, England. In 1912 another bit of a cranium was found, and then a jawbone with three molars. Several years later an eye tooth was found in a rubbish heap. Though found at different times and in different spots, the bits were put together and Piltdown man was born. A few evolutionists argued that the pieces did not belong together, but the majority ruled and, with no proof but much dogmatism, proclaimed a missing link. Its age? Five hundred thousand years. Proof? No, just more dogmatism. Now the five hundred thousand years have dwindled to fifty thousand and some scientists have even cut it to ten thousand.

Mr. Piltdown’s antiquity is gone, his position as a link is shattered, but the dogmatism of his evolutionary sponsors remains. It is demonstrated relative to other so-called links between ape and man. A case similar to the Piltdown man is that of the Java man. In 1891 Dubois discovered in river gravel a few fragments of skull and some teeth. Later, and some fifty feet away, a thigh bone was uncovered. These bits were unjustifiably assumed to be all from one creature, and so were assembled to become the famous Java man. As in the case of Piltdown man, some evolutionists have objected to this arbitrary association of these scattered bones and have pointed out that the skull fragment is undoubtedly from a chimpanzee or gibbon whereas the thigh bone is human. Yet the majority of evolutionists would not allow their manufactured link to be dissolved and to this day hail Java man as one of the strongest proofs of evolution from ape to man. Doubtless when this folly is unmasked before everyone these dogmatic evolutionists will shrug it off as something they suspected all the time.

The average person may think of a completely assembled primitive ape-man when the Heidelberg man is mentioned. But all science has is a large jawbone complete with teeth. From this the evolutionists tell us the size, posture, diet and tools he used. However, they do not tell us jaws of similar size and proportion are found among the Eskimos of today. You have heard of Peking man, another famous link. It is heralded because its brain size is about halfway between that of man and ape. But again, people of this same skull size and shape exist today; namely, the Veddas in Ceylon. Neanderthal man is no different from some men living today. Moreover, modern-type men are found in earth layers older than those containing these so-called “missing links.” There is absolutely no proof of any missing links between man and ape.

Of the famous missing links evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith said: “We cannot trace modern man back to any of these extinct types.” Professor Branco of Berlin University said: “Paleontology tells us nothing on the subject—it knows no ancestors of man.” Professor Virchow declared: “The man-ape has no existence and the missing link remains a phantom.” Austin Clark of Smithsonian Institution said: “Missing links are misinterpretations.” And when their finds do not support their theory the evolutionists conceal that evidence, as evolutionist Hooton, Harvard professor of anthropology, admits: “Heretical and nonconforming fossil men were banished to the limbo of dark museum cupboards, forgotten or even destroyed.” Incidentally, when Hooton heard of the disgrace and demise of the Piltdown man he termed it “tragic.” Little wonder, since he had staunchly defended it in his writings.

But the evolutionists will continue parading their “links” and will propagandize for them with unabated dogmatism. From beginning to end, the evolution theory is supported by assertions, not evidence. Any who argue against it are not authorities, any who criticize it are not scientific; so they say to intimidate and scare off critics and jam the theory down people’s throats by the tyranny of authority. So it is not only links that are missing, but proofs and unprejudiced approaches and scientific methods that are missing. Despite hot denials, evolution is accepted on “faith” and faith alone.

Now their faith in Piltdown man is gone. Their words about him are false, their wisdom turned out to be folly. ...

“Ape-Men”—What Were They?

...

Where Are the “Links”?

However, have not scientists found the necessary “links” between apelike animals and man? Not according to the evidence. Science Digest speaks of “the lack of a missing link to explain the relatively sudden appearance of modern man.”⁠15 Newsweek observed: “The missing link between man and the apes . . . is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule.”⁠16

Because there are no links, “phantom creatures” have to be fabricated from minimal evidence and passed off as though they had really existed. That explains why the following contradiction could occur, as reported by a science magazine: “Humans evolved in gradual steps from their apelike ancestors and not, as some scientists contend, in sudden jumps from one form to another. . . . But other anthropologists, working with much the same data, reportedly have reached exactly the opposite conclusion.”⁠17

Thus we can better understand the observation of respected anatomist Solly Zuckerman who wrote in the Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh: “The search for the proverbial ‘missing link’ in man’s evolution, that holy grail of a never dying sect of anatomists and biologists, allows speculation and myth to flourish as happily to-day as they did 50 years ago and more.”⁠18 He noted that, all too often, facts were ignored, and instead, what was currently popular was championed in spite of evidence to the contrary.

...

Past Humans were "Intelligent and Smart", just not at the cognitive level Sapiens display.

Of course they could form simple communities and social groups. Crude tool use and even some form of religious outlook, however bizarre it would be.

I akin the new borns who show higher intelligence then others as a source of consternation among this highly ignorant and superstitous peoples.

originally posted by: Harte
...
The fact that the idiot narrator brings up the old trope "the missing link" - a thing which does not (and cannot) even exist tells the whole story about the ignorance on display in the vid.
...

Thank you for your honesty as you demonstrate having been affected by this particular propaganda trick that involves playing on the emotions (I'll get to which emotions exactly later):

‘UNBELIEVERS are uninformed, unreasonable, irresponsible, incompetent, ignorant, dogmatic, enslaved by old illusions and prejudices.’ In these ways leading evolutionists describe those who do not accept evolution as a fact. However, cool, logical, scientific reasoning, backed by observational and experimental evidence, need not resort to such personal invective.

The position of the evolutionists is more characteristic of religious dogmatism. When the chief priests and Pharisees saw the crowds accepting Jesus, they sent officers to arrest him, with this result: “The Temple police who had been sent to arrest him returned to the chief priests and Pharisees. ‘Why didn’t you bring him in?’ they demanded. ‘He says such wonderful things!’ they mumbled. ‘We’ve never heard anything like it.’ ‘So you also have been led astray?’ the Pharisees mocked. ‘Is there a single one of us Jewish rulers or Pharisees who believes he is the Messiah? These stupid crowds do, yes; but what do they know about it? A curse upon them anyway!”’​—John 7:32, 45-49, The Living Bible.

They were wrong, for evidence proves that many of the rulers were being affected by Jesus’ teaching. Even individual priests became his followers. (John 12:42; Acts 6:7; 15:5) Unable to refute Jesus, the Pharisees as a group resorted to tyranny of authority. Today evolutionists adopt the same tactics: ‘Stupid crowds, what do they know? All reputable scientists accept evolution!’ Not so. As Discover magazine said: “Now that hallowed theory is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists.”​—October 1980.

Writing in Science, R. E. Gibson said that Galileo possessed “a passionate antagonism to any kind of dogma based on human authority.” It was his intellectual integrity that got him into trouble with the Inquisition. But such integrity, Gibson asserts, “is not fashionable now; the present tendency is for the scientific community, now grown powerful, to behave much as the church did in Galileo’s time.” Is modern science handling power and prestige any better than the Catholic Church did? Einstein once remarked that we are not as far removed from Galileo’s time as we would like to think.​—Science, September 18, 1964, pp. 1271-1276.

Robert Jastrow refers to “the religious faith of the scientist” and his irritation when the evidence doesn’t match his beliefs. J. N. W. Sullivan calls belief in spontaneous generation “an article of faith,” and T. H. Huxley said it was “an act of philosophical faith.” Sullivan said that to believe that evolution made all life on earth was “an extraordinary act of faith.” Dr. J. R. Durant points out that “many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic, seizing upon new ideas with almost missionary zeal . . . In the case of the theory of evolution, the missionary spirit seems to have prevailed.” Physicist H. S. Lipson says that after Darwin “evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.”

... Simpson, in The Meaning of Evolution, said evolutionists “may use the same data to ‘prove’ diametrically opposed theories” and each one “puts his particular theory into the data.” (Pp. 137-9) Sullivan said that scientists do not “invariably tell the truth, or try to, even about their science. They have been known to lie, but they did not lie in order to serve science but, usually, religious or anti-religious prejudices.”​—Limitations of Science, pp. 173-5.

The original quest for truth is often forgotten as each one gleans for ideas to bolster his own emotional conviction, whether it be scientific dogma or religious creed. Evolution is not the caliber of the science that sends men to the moon or cracks the genetic code. It is more like religion​—priestlike authorities that speak ex cathedra, sectarian squabbles, unexplainable mysteries, faith in missing links and missing mutations, a laity that blindly follows, wresting evidence to fit their creed, and denouncing nonbelievers as stupid. [whereislogic: i.e. 'idiots', using the earlier bolded term] And their god? The same one the ancients sacrificed to, preparing “a table for the god of Good Luck.”​—Isa. 65:11. [whereislogic: see also The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies and Philosophical Naturalism (part 1 of 2), cause "there is nothing new under the sun" here, Eccl. 1:9)

In Hans Christian Andersen’s famous tale of the emperor’s new clothes, it took a small child to tell the emperor that he was naked. Evolution now parades as fully clothed fact. We need childlike honesty to tell it that it’s naked. And we need courageous scientists like Professor Lipson, who said: “We must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.”

What evidence is there for belief in creation? See the following article.

THE “TYRANNY OF AUTHORITY” USED BY EVOLUTIONISTS

“When he [Darwin] finished, the fact of evolution could be denied only by an abandonment of reason.”​—Life Nature Library, “Evolution,” p. 10.

“It is not a matter of personal taste whether or not we believe in evolution. The evidence for evolution is compelling.”​—“Evolution, Genetics, and Man,” p. 319, Dobzhansky.

“Its essential truth is now universally accepted by scientists competent to judge.”​—“Nature and Man’s Fate,” p. v, Hardin.

“The establishment of life’s family tree by the evolutionary process is now universally recognized by all responsible scientists.”​—“A Guide to Earth History,” p. 82, Carrington.

“No informed mind today denies that man is descended by slow process from the world of the fish and the frog.”​—“Life” magazine, August 26, 1966, Ardrey.

“It has become almost self-evident and requires no further proof to anyone reasonably free of old illusions and prejudices.”​—“The Meaning of Evolution,” p. 338, Simpson.

“There is no rival hypothesis except the outworn and completely refuted one of special creation, now retained only by the ignorant, the dogmatic, and the prejudiced.”​—“Outlines of General Zoology,” p. 407, Newman.

Note the little inverse trick there in some of the quotations at the end, so that if you take the inverse, you arrive at what was described in the first paragraph in that article, bringing us back to the bolded terms in your comment that I'm focusing on to elaborate on my statement regarding what you are demonstrating when sharing those kind of opinions.

Source was: If Not a Fact, What Is It? (Awake!—1981)

Now regarding which of your emotions exactly are being played upon when promoters of evolutionary mythology are using "the tyranny of authority" as described and exemplified above:

Some propagandists play on pride. Often we can spot appeals to pride by looking for such key phrases as: “Any intelligent person knows that . . .” or, “A person with your education can’t help but see that . . .” A reverse appeal to pride plays on our fear of seeming stupid. Professionals in persuasion are well aware of that.

Source: The Manipulation of Information (Awake!—2000)

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: Harte
...
The fact that the idiot narrator brings up the old trope "the missing link" - a thing which does not (and cannot) even exist tells the whole story about the ignorance on display in the vid.

Then why all the media anouncements concerning so-called "missing links"?

SNIP

Evidently, you think tracts published by religious institutions (in this case the Jehovah Witnesses) is the "media."
It would also seem that you think the "media" is a reliable source.

Where is logic indeed.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Evidently your aversion to anything contrary to your worldview is so strong that you possibly didn't even notice it was quoting The Guardian newspaper. If you did notice, it makes your comment even more silly.

It would also seem that you think the "media" is a reliable source.

You're just making stuff up now, there's nothing in my comment or in that article that even remotely suggests such an impression. It's easier to get the opposite impression from what is said about the behaviour of the media in regards to the promotion of evolutionary philosophies and stories, i.e. that they are not a reliable source (especially when they do exactly what's described in the first article, the part you possibly didn't even bother to read cause you don't wanna hear it, as described at 2 Tim 4:3,4)

But it's all rather obvious from your decision not to answer my question and talk past what is actually being presented there and what source was quoted in regards to the term "missing link", which directly relates to my question:

Then why all the media anouncements concerning so-called "missing links"?

How about acknowledging that the media does that for starters? (cause you sort of tip-toed around that subject since that reality doesn't jive very well with what you said that I was responding to) As shown in the example from The Guardian. Rather than pretending I "think tracts published by religious institutions is the media" or that I think that the media is a reliable source. Just a nonsensical paintjob that is so far removed from what's actually in my commentary, that it's just silly.

The UK science journal New Scientist also used the term when it said: “Ida is not a ‘missing link’ in human evolution.” As quoted in the first article. A surprising choice of words if one takes your remarks about it seriously, in your other paintjob on the narrator of the Discovery Institute (sponsored*) video. (*: I don't know how it exactly works but I know the video is on their youtube channel)

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Harte

Evidently your aversion to anything contrary to your worldview is so strong that you possibly didn't even notice it was quoting The Guardian newspaper. If you did notice, it makes your comment even more silly.

Ahem.
YOU'RE the one that cited the Jehovah Witnesses as a source.
And it was YOU that cited "the media" as a source here as well.

Talk about tunnel vision...

Harte