It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
There is vast information being held from the public.
originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: theabsolutetruth
There is vast information being held from the public.
You do realize that the scientists* who published the report above would be 'considered a mainstream' scientists - so why are they not part of the 'agenda'?
*I have not investigated who he is but will at this time accept that he is what he claims.
most textbooks, including many in education are still saying colourless, which is a lie, water is blue
originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: Caver78
How do you know this guy is right and not biased versus the other people who have put out other theories whom you seem to be saying are biased?
How do you know this?
Water is very slightly blue in color [131]c as overtone and combination vibrational absorption bands (albeit far less intense, see above [130]) extend through the red part of the visible spectrum with a small peak at 739 nm and shoulder at 836 nm, plus a smaller fourth overtone of the v1:v3 stretch at 606 nm, and very small fifth overtone (at 514 nm) and combined overtone (at 660 nm) bands.
These overtone and combination vibrational bands increase and sharpen somewhat with increasing temperature [268] in line with the expectation from the two state water model. This absorption spectrum of water (red light absorbs 100 times more than blue light), together with the five-times greater scattering of blue light over red light, contributes to the blue color of lake, river and ocean waters. Colloidal silica may contribute to the outstanding blue color of certain, often hydrothermal, pools and lakes [372]. Ice is also blue [159] for similar reasons but liquid D2O does not absorb in the red region (as the absorption band is shifted into the infrared) and is blue solely because of the light scattering effect [159].
originally posted by: Monger
I'm not seeing any proof what-so-ever, just vague allusions to a vast scientific coverup and preemptive 'I'm not a racist, but...' type responses. It's difficult not to question the motives behind something like this.
In introductory classes to biological anthropology, both instructors and the authors of numerous textbooks have been tempted to present the origin of modern humans as two equally plausible, mutually exclusive evolutionary scenarios: the Out of Africa hypothesis and the Multiregional Evolution hypothesis. These models can be expressed succinctly on a single PowerPoint slide, have historically been both suggested and supported by influential scholars in the field, and can be massively simplified for undergraduate consumption and, hopefully, comprehension. The good news is this: we can stop doing this now. The bad news is that a more current representation of the consensus that most researchers have reached is likely to be more complex and convoluted. In addition, it can likely only be represented by models of human evolution destined to befuddle introductory students everywhere, complete with multiple slides, wandering migration arrows, question marks, and unapologetic blank spaces. (One Year in Biological Anthropology: Species, Integration, and Boundaries in 2010, 214)
The 2010-2012 studies could have been a boon to anthropology if we had defended the multiregional model, but they now put some standard anthropological accounts in an awkward position. Embracing the replacement hypothesis and Mitochondrial Eve–without further developing the multiregional model–leaves anthropology needing to reconfigure a response.
In retrospect, embracing the replacement hypothesis and Mitochondrial Eve was very problematic for anthropology. Although these problems should have been more obvious earlier, they are painfully clear in 2012:
Kathleen Fuller, PhD • 2 years ago
This is a good overview. I am among the small group of anthropologists who never succumbed to the lure of mtEve. It made no sense, and I am glad that further genetic analysis has supported the inclusion of so-called archaics into modern human diversity. I lost respect for Gould when he came out in support of mtEve; mtEve was clearly a 'creation' event, not an example of speciation, and, therefore, not scientific. I was shocked when so many anthropologists jumped on board the mtEve, recent out-of-Africa bandwagon. Fortunately, my current and former students will not have to re-learn that Neanderthals were part of modern human heritage since that is what I've always taught.