Book titles in James Ussher’s time were often incredibly long. Unlike today’s titles chosen for eye-grabbing marketability, antique works were named for their subject(s), as well as for the author’s “angle.” Such is the case for Ussher’s 1650 Latin magnum opus and the very book behind many Young Earthers’ chief arguments: Annales Veteris Testamenti, a prima mundi origine deducti, una cum rerum Asiaticarum et Aegyptiacarum chronico, a temporis historici principio usque ad Maccabaicorum initia product. In plain English, this title reads: Annals of the Old Testament, Deduced from the First Origins of the World, the Chronicle of Asiatic and Egyptian Matters Together Produced from the Beginning of Historical Time Up to the Beginnings of Maccabees. (A mouthful, I know.)
In many modern references, Ussher’s most important work is shortened to Annals, which is how we will proceed as well, but early on, there is something in the title I hope to draw attention to: “deduced from the first origins of the world.” Meaning no disrespect to Ussher, there is a misnomer in this string of words that assumes the writer of Annals was personally present at the world’s origins in order to “deduce” what occurred at that moment—or, that he had a personal, supernatural revelation from God regarding the origins of the universe that led to an irrefutable, God-given deduction. I realize that’s not literally what the work states, but placing Ussher’s influential name alongside something that has been “deduced” (narrowed down to a solid conclusion)—and believing that very conclusion to have been backed by the authority of the Bible, itself—infers a sense of weight that the information is absolute. More simply: Annals has the ultimate, matchless, most sovereign, indisputable, and supreme answer to history’s grandest question regarding how and when we all got here. Some Christians today haven’t even heard of Ussher, but while he lived, a work by a man like him would have leapt across the lecture hall of the greatest universities and slapped any skeptic upside the head, wagging an invisible finger of shame to any who would be bold enough to doubt his work. Though not every Young Earth ministry or spokesman claims to base their evidence upon only what Ussher taught (especially when his findings came under harsher scrutiny in the nineteenth century, and since then, Young Earth groups have distanced themselves from his name), without Ussher inaugurating these apologetics into the Body of Christ when he did, we may never have had such a huge movement of Young Earth apologetics in the first place. Had it not been for Ussher’s work, we may have simply approached theology and science together from the beginning, allowing the Great Scientist and His Creation narrative to harmonize, instead of placing ourselves in a position to be “the weaker argument” to the unbelieving (or skeptical) world outside.
Needless to say, there was a sort of unassailable “authority fortress” (I’ll explain this term in a moment) this particular manuscript held from the beginning.
Interestingly, I’ve come across this before…
| In 2016, Tom Horn approached me to assist with the research behind the book, Unearthing the Lost World of the Cloudeaters: Compelling Evidence of the Incursion of Giants, Their Extraordinary Technology, and Imminent Return [FREE WITH “BEFORE GENESIS” HERE]), which he coauthored with Stephen Quayle. Most of my findings were included in the eleventh chapter, entitled: “The Truth about the Great Smithsonian Cover-Up.” |  |
One central purpose of the book was to investigate the concepts and potential proofs that giants existed upon the earth at some point, as Genesis 6:4 states, and to consider what that might mean for science. (Important note: Sometimes, when people hear the word “giants,” they think of a massive, humanlike entity standing hundreds of feet tall, with a head towering above the clouds and feet that could simultaneously crush the Taj Mahal and half of India in a single step—resembling something straight out of a fairy tale like Jack and the Beanstalk. However, when we say “giants,” we’re referring to the beings whose bones were found in earlier archeological digs measuring closer to the size of a very large human, as we will see in chapter 7 of this work.)
The research from Unearthing the Lost World of the Cloudeaters is relevant here for two reasons: 1) It illustrates what I mean by an “authority-fortress” theory that cannot easily be struck down once introduced by the right man in a position of power (which is what happened with Ussher, though his intention was pure); 2) it contributes to this series’ message by showing how, in the past, discoveries on our planet were hidden under layers of red tape that prohibited the general public from knowing scientific and archeological facts that would debunk everything we think we know about evolution (including Darwinism).
The trail in that chapter begins by noting the almighty super-museum, the Smithsonian Institution, frequently spreads misinformation through erroneous artifact displays, discovery reports, conferences, educational materials, and other outlets. One area in which this was particularly applicable to the Cloudeaters study was a great number of bones that had been unearthed in Native American burial mounds. Remains of an ancient race we know hardly anything about (even still) were dug up at multiple sites across the US, showing that something, some humanlike race of very large proportions, had walked the earth alongside man in the distant past. (These findings will be discussed in a later chapter. For now, pay close attention to how easily the truth about Earth can be concealed from the public through only one person with impressive connections.)
To those initially wondering why a museum matters in the discussion of power, it must be explained that the Smithsonian, despite the fact that it’s long been a popular destination for vacationers to see many famous exhibits at its New York or Washington DC facilities, it’s always has been much more than just a tourist attraction. In the mid-1800s, a wealthy chemist named James Smithson designated in his will an enormous sum of money in to go toward furthering knowledge in some aspect on US territory. He didn’t stipulate the “how” and “what” behind the way the money should accomplish that goal, so our government went back and forth for eight straight years debating how “knowledge” could be increased through this great donation. Among the many ideas offered by US government officials were the establishment of “school grounds, libraries, observatories, gardens, zoologist research centers, agricultural hubs, art galleries, and science discovery centers.”[i]
Gradually, the idea that morphed from so many conflicting angles birthed a one-of-a-kind establishment in that it eventually encompassed all the ideas together into one central focus: the assembling of a collection of artifacts, specimens, artwork, and educational materials and aims of every kind into newly raised buildings where they would be preserved and arranged for the purpose of public education. These buildings would also house many educational conferences, lectures, and seminars given by celebrated professors in fields relative to: astronomy, geography, geology, minerology, philosophy, science and chemistry, agriculture, natural history, American history, fine arts, antiquities, and the study of cultures around the globe.[ii]
Whispers of this new establishment spread quickly across the States, and the word “Smithsonian” gained an immediate reputation as being one of the most innovative, advanced, technological, and state-of-the-art educational centers in the world. So far more than mere “museum” was what the Smithsonian promised our country before the first brick was ever laid in the foundation of its original building site. However, despite the wonderful things this institution has always done, it must be remembered that there are finite, faulty humans behind everything it offers; therefore, “absolute truth” has historically been more of a suggestion than a mandate in its offerings.
As a quick and easy example of this that can be proven through the Smithsonian’s own published documents,[iii] Smithson—the founding donor who was born in Paris in 1765 and died in 1829—could not have been a day older than sixty-four years old when he passed on. Yet, visitors to the main entrance of the Smithsonian building in Washington, DC, will see a plaque in his memory ending with the words, “aged 75 years.” If we can’t trust the verity of the commemoration of this most celebrated founder—what some might consider the most important exhibit in the entire museum, as it bespeaks of its very own origin—how many other of the museum’s displays or educational materials are untrustworthy?[iv] As the Cloudeaters chapter goes on to show, I contacted the Smithsonian to ask this very question. The transcript of the recorded phone conversation is included in that book, but to keep it short here: Even the “information specialists” employed by the Smithsonian didn’t have a clue the date on their founder’s plaque was incorrect. When I first pointed this out, the specialist on the line insisted I was wrong: The inscription was accurate, because “everything at the Smithsonian is always accurate.” When I explained that historical records, along with their very own published literature and website, conflicted with the date on display, the long silence and tripping over words on the other end of the line led to the eventual statement that this was the only mistake and “everything else [at the Smithsonian] is true.”[v] (An interesting, unaccountable redirect, indeed…) In case you’re wondering: There was no signage nearby that explained the discrepancy or corrected the date, so every person visiting the museum is greeted in the very first room with misinformation.
Okay, okay, but that’s just a measly error. Surely, Donna, you’re not suggesting that this strips the whole Smithsonian Institute of its credibility, are you?
The question remains valid, and we’ll ask it again: How deep does that well truly go? If we can’t even trust the people behind this organization to get their facts straight about their founder—and if this institution’s own staff is unaware of what isn’t accurate—how many other “facts” from their reporting or exhibits are incorrect? When can they be trusted, and when should they be challenged? Who decides which details are marginal and unimportant versus those that are critical? And why are the information specialists—a key group of employees specifically trained to have the facts nailed down—entirely unaware of mistakes in the Smithsonian’s claims? (You might find it interesting to go online and search for something similar to “inaccuracies within Smithsonian literature [or “curriculum,” “displays,” “exhibits,” and so on]” to see an overwhelming number of sources railing against the institution’s numerous errors in many areas. These errors have, in the recent past, complicated their funding and forced adjustments or shutdowns of certain educational exhibits and outlets. Nevertheless, the very word “Smithsonian” still carries an air of educational authority.)
A date on a tomb might be a small issue, sure…but what about all those enormous, humanlike bones found in the ground in the Smithsonian’s earlier days that, again, the institution’s literature openly acknowledges? Imagine the possibilities if we could study those findings further. Such access could lead to unimaginable, epic discoveries of who (or what) shared this planet with us in ancient times, and what that means for biblical truth and evolutionary theories.
I will share an example from my Cloudeaters chapter using canines to highlight only one angle that would make the revision of current human evolutionary teaching not only likely, but a guaranteed reality, if the giant bones we have had access to historically were a part of our current educational curricula:
The Saluki is one of fourteen of the oldest known canine breeds, referred to as “the royal dog of Egypt” because of their association as the loyal, right-hand best friend to Egyptian pharaohs. (Their remains have been found mummified as well, suggesting that they were esteemed in high honor.) The Ibizan hound (as seen on the tomb of Tutankhamun) has a similar story, and both breeds were fit, trim, long-legged hunters. If an archeological team discovered a Saluki/Ibizan hound crossbreed buried near an ancient pyramid today, such a find would not shake the foundations of all we know about canine biology [and evolution]. Why? Because we know there were at least fourteen breeds of canine around the world at that time that could have procreated and produced another breed, and our modern biological science now recognizes 339 official dog breeds, according to the World Canine Organization.[vi] We are already well aware that one dog can breed with another dog and create something entirely new, but the offspring is still a dog. Much funding has already backed such science, and the world is not turned on its head every time a breeder announces a new and great kind of hound for dog-lovers everywhere. Humans, also, can breed after their own kind, producing interracial offspring, and this is common knowledge. So, yes, biology has proven that when something produces after its own kind, then the offspring of that union is of that kind.…
But if the remains of a gigantically proportioned, fifteen-cubit-tall, Saluki-looking dog were found near a pyramid, the measurements of which disregarded all we know of canine evolutionary development, it would shake the foundations of all we know about canine biology [and evolution]. Any serious biologist would consider this a possible link to a completely new biological thread—or at the very least an extreme inter-breeding tactic practiced by the ancients but unknown to our current world [as can be interpreted by Genesis 6:4]—until proven otherwise…and it should be taken very seriously.… If a discovery proves that something looks like a dog but can’t be, based on known biology, then let’s face it! Our biology would be determined subject to limitation, and the “dog” might not actually be a dog! Or it could be a dog that has cross-bred with some other ancient animal, testifying to a DNA-manipulation procedure carried out by an ancient unknown science. Either way, it would not be ignored by the scientific community. It might be hidden away if the discovery points to something scientists don’t want the rest of the world to know about, but it would not be ignored.[vii]
Proof of humanlike giants, if the public was aware of it, would unravel evolutionary theories about humankind (and again, especially Darwinism). Why aren’t we hearing about the bones the Smithsonian team found and documented back in the day?
I’ll tell you why in three words: John Powell Doctrine.
ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW VIDEO:
Major John Powell was to the scientific world of discovery and the Smithsonian what Archbishop James Ussher was to the development of Western theology. After Powell’s explorations of the Grand Canyon propelled him into worldwide fame and marked him as a reliable voice in archeology, “his judgments on the archaeological surveys became the chief authority for everyone at the Smithsonian, as well as the listening world.”[viii] Early on in his career with the museum, his work was funded by massive organizations and corporations, and his name became synonymous with the mighty Smithsonian. Money poured in from excited donors everywhere who wanted to see what he would dig up in his next archeological pursuit. However, something bizarre, perhaps dubious, occurred before too much of his work could produce any further findings when an enormous US government grant came in:
It is not at all a secret that Powell was exceptionally bent toward rationalizing away any concepts that challenged our known evolutionary science, and although this would be the expected approach for many in his position, it is surprising to learn that his reaction to the large grant given by US Congress to the Division of Mound Exploration was not positive [i.e., he wasn’t happy about the free money he had been given from the government].…
One might take from reading Powell’s writings that he wished to study only the ethnicity of aboriginal tribes and remain nonintrusive, which might explain why the grant did not result in his celebratory reaction. Others throughout the years, however, have read his statements and understandably come to the conclusion that Powell believed there were things buried in those strange mounds that he did not want the world to know about, lest everything we think we know about humanity’s history be confronted. Why else would additional government funding be bad news? Any true investigator would tackle the mounds enthusiastically in pursuit of authentic science when backed by support of the government, not with hesitance or fear that the [current and perceived] science would be defied.
Nevertheless, Powell cooperated with the intentions of the funding, though not without a grand voicing of concern over how the resources would be employed. In 1882, the first BOE [Bureau of Ethnology] report from Powell was penned: On Limitations to the Use of Some Anthropologic Data. The title itself is revealing of his agenda. It does not require analysis by an achieved academic to see that before the report’s first sentence graced the eyes of its readers, Powell was already placing limitations on how the data accumulated at the exploration sites were to be used.[ix]
From the beginning, Powell placed limitations (calling them that literally) upon how his findings could be used in the scientific community. In no uncertain terms, within this document he prohibited his work from having any connection with research of ancient races of humans or humanlike beings that could have fit the description and size of what we would call “giants,” entirely disregarding legitimate findings of that very nature reported publicly and transparently through the museum’s literature for decades prior.
To share one example: Discoveries of ancient pictographs involving towering, humanlike beings with six fingers and toes and double rows of teeth were, in Powell’s Limitations document, written off as purely imaginative drawings—a sort of creative fiction writing expressed on the stone walls of the homes of bored Native Americans thousands of years ago. Anyone fifteen minutes into research on the frescoes of Rome or Egyptian hieroglyphs (to name only two examples) would know this is an irresponsible conclusion based on assumption, not on science or dependable anthropologic examination that has historically recognized pictographs of the past to be an outright documentation of others’ life experiences in this world. (Scholars use the frescoes of Rome to express what went on in the pagan temples of Christ’s day. Nobody has a problem with that, but when the drawings of Native Americans attest to a giant race, its “creative writing,” even in areas where the bones discovered in the burial mounds show the writing on the wall to be relevant. This is inconsistent treatment of anthropological data, and Powell was an enormous instigator of this kind of “limited use” from earlier cultures.) Likewise, this “creative writing” approach must ignore that these pictographs appeared in many locations, with huge distances between them, dated in the same or similar periods: It’s impossible to imagine that an entire community of early settlers scattered across the territory now known as the United States would all face the same boredom in the same era of time, then treat that boredom by sketching images of giant beings that, by coincidence, shared intricate physical characteristics with those drawn by other Native American tribes thousands of miles away. Remember, this was before Facebook, so they couldn’t “share,” “like,” “thumbs up,” or “repost” images, or in any way know what faraway tribes were writing on their walls. How would all these people imagine the same giant-being simultaneously—and, again, in an area where inexplicably large bones were found in the burial mounds?
Powell was correct in saying that a perfect record [of these pictures] was not made, but he was ill-informed if he assumed that anything outside his own limited worldview was the subject of fairy-tale fancy. Much to the contrary, every ancient culture we have ever studied at length have left behind their stories in wall and rock drawings, and it is from this artistic documentation form that we have developed much modern understanding of the old world, its inhabitants, and the people groups they mingled with.
That Powell would say these images are “illegitimate…for historic purposes” [in his Limitations report] challenges the historical and archeological practices set in place by experts of his own field for hundreds of years.[x]
Another example is in the continuously circular logic Powell employs in Limitations. For instance, in considering the origin of mankind, he states: “While the doctrines [of Darwinian evolution] lead the way to new fields of discovery, the new discoveries lead again to new doctrines.”[xi] So, the “doctrine” of Darwinism can be replaced by a new knowledge base of mankind’s origin as soon as the efforts of the scientific community produce new discoveries that sufficiently challenge it. For a moment, it sounds like he’s open-minded.
Unfortunately, though, this moment of clarity results in a mere tease as we observe [Powell] using the very doctrines of evolution as a means to escape further study of it. Rather than to unearth and analyze the evidence that challenges evolution so our scientific database can expand, Powell states: “The truth or error of such hypothetic genealogy [referring to giant myths] in no way affects the validity of the doctrines of evolution in the minds of scientific men, but on the other hand the value of the tentative theory is brought to final judgment under the laws of evolution.”[xii] In other words, the theories presented by believers of the ancient giant races ultimately have to come under the final judgment of “the laws of evolution.”[xiii]
Did you catch that? Powell first says Darwinism can be replaced by new ideologies when evidence emerges to challenge it, then he traps those ideologies from ever emerging through the Smithsonian or its researchers by saying whatever we do discover must be seen and evaluated through a Darwinian lens. Again, it’s circular logic that—in cheeky terminology that flaunts academic, highbrow superiority over many of his readers—champions and simultaneously stops objective, scientific progress.
Speaking of cheeky terminology, that’s one area in which Powell excelled. Throughout his report, he wraps his conclusions in lengthy, wordy, straw-man arguments that a true intellect of his day could knock over with a puff of wind. But that is precisely the problem. The “true intellects” then were few and far between, as a far larger number of laypeople going about their work and trying to survive wars, depressions, etc., were either illiterate or lacked the English language skills necessary to follow the over-one’s-head, complicated, anthropologic jargon of his report. He knew well that only a small minority of people would be able to follow—let alone challenge—his statements. To those who could understand what he was saying, he used a technique I’ve coined “intellectual snobbery”: He applied an undertone of arrogance that indirectly insulted anyone who dared question or challenge his experience, position, education, accomplishments, or skill. It’s the underlying condescending insinuation that, “If you don’t agree with my conclusions, you might be pretty, but you’re not very bright, Honey.”
Powell’s chosen words continue to imply—though carefully and politely—that anyone who would be audacious enough to demand answers from the scientific community about why there are mammoth people buried in Indian mounds across the United States belong to the unenlightened minority. The un-philosophical. The time-wasters. The resource sponges. The disrespecters of sacred Indian grounds. The meddlers. Or, in current popular parlance, “the Fake News” reporters. In the end, no matter how he veils his arguments with diplomacy, the distinguished Grand Canyon explorer is giving a nod of approval to anyone who is willing to become a member of his mature and rational club, while casting the proverbial dunce hat on anyone who isn’t “intelligent” enough to dismiss the giant people as an irrelevant past quirk of regular-human biology. It’s condescension at its finest, and the public has to make the choice to challenge the eminent Major Powell while the scientific community represents them as whack jobs, or be brainwashed into his reasoning. Is this not effectively the opposite of the beloved objectivity Powell treasures?
The skill Powell is using in his report is older than dirt. Take a conflict on any subject and place an articulate spokesperson at the head of one side who confidently weaves intimidating and lofty words around their claims to make their listeners feel stupid for not blindly agreeing, and it almost doesn’t matter what the claims are, so long as the public is barraged with fancy speech that leaves them confused about why they questioned anything to begin with.…
Wouldn’t it JUST. BE. EASIER. at this point to bring out the bones and talk frankly about what evolution actually does say on the matter? If evolution is such a pet of Powell’s, why won’t he let evolution address it?…
To suggest this never-ending and complicated trail of discussion [about bones] is vain and fruitless would be true if it weren’t for the fact that we’re still left with giant bones that nobody will answer for. Again, “giants upon the earth” [from Genesis] is no longer purely “mythology” if we have giant bones—and we do. Conspiracy is not a “theory” when there’s proof. Some of the legend or lore surrounding giants might be mythological, but we won’t know what is or isn’t until the bones are addressed, and they can’t be as long as the Powells of the world stand in the way as keeper of the keys to the mounds, canceling out the resources to dive into true science on the grounds that it would only be to prove or disprove irrational conspiracy theorist’s mythological fables.
It’s not about mythology…. It’s about bones in the ground.
Powell refuses to appreciate this simplicity as long as his complicated lectures about largely unrelated subjects continue to herd people away from further investigation.[xiv]
As to how this Limitations report morphed into the Powell Doctrine that would forever silence further study of what might be behind Genesis 6:4 on this planet—as well as travel back in time and conceal the bones already unearthed under more red tape—much of that occurred shortly following Powell’s death. Charles Doolittle Walcott, the chief executive officer of the Smithsonian, possibly saw the former explorer’s untimely exit from the world as an opportunity for the public to make demands about further investigation of giant bones and took it as a threat to, or a distraction against, the path of scientific progress they were on at the time Powell died. (We honestly don’t know Walcott’s personal motive in championing Powell’s doublespeak writings, but it is easy to see an agenda behind the decision to carry on his prohibitive stance if the excavation of bones had the potential of disrupting all then-current avenues of research.) This brings us to the “authority fortress” mentioned earlier:
Walcott hailed [Powell’s Limitations] report with such irrefutable and mesmeric magnitude that the Smithsonian executives deemed the document the “Powell Doctrine.” Powell’s smarter-than-you linguistic skills naturally fed the pride of many of his followers, which by extension lent itself to further brainwashing from the top rung of the Smithsonian and down. From 1907 to this day, the now-outdated Powell Doctrine has been the final word on the issue of giant bones, as well as ancient [Native American] culture. Powell was, himself, viewed as a great authority, but he was only one man. When Walcott rallied the rest of the Smithsonian superiors to embrace the Powell report, the rest of the world embraced it as well…. As a result, then, the museum established the Powell Doctrine as a literal, official policy to exclude any and all alternative evaluations of the mounds, bones, pictographs, and human-origin hypotheses, regardless of evidence. Any perspective, no matter how scientifically sound, would be snuffed out under the suppressive abort button of the Doctrine. After 1907, it would not matter what was found in the ground. The policy was solid. No opinion other than Powell’s would ever matter to the Smithsonian again.
And you can guess what naturally happens next [pay attention to the rest of this paragraph!]: Under this administration, years of the institution’s time and money are placed into book collections, exhibits, staff training, and uncountable materials that support this Doctrine as truth. The fortress built cannot easily be torn down, and its influence spreads.
Tragically, because of the weight the Smithsonian’s opinion holds to educational institutions across the United States, the Powell Doctrine policy of exclusion was also incorporated into the dogma of most major American universities, adding a behemoth layer of clout to Powell’s appraisal. Students of reputable colleges all across the country haven’t the slightest idea why they are being taught what they are, or that it all came from one man a hundred and fifty years ago. [Apply this situation to Darwinian evolution, and you can understand why that theory—which has been responsibly refuted countless times by true scientists since its conception—carries on in many educational facilities today, and why the Church Body still thinks all forms of “evolution” must mean “man came from monkeys” and therefore refuses to engage in conversations with the lost about the science that shows Earth to be old.]
Much documentation has been collected that follows an unscrupulous trajectory from various archeological digs to the Smithsonian as research teams are submitting their finds to the museum for study and/or display, and the trail goes dark at that point. The bones the Smithsonian is receiving are not making their way to the museum floor or laboratories, and nary is a word uttered that they were ever submitted after they were unearthed. [Just three nights ago at the time of this writing, I viewed a documentary showing one interview after another of folks who have found enormous bones in forests, near streams, between large rock formations, etc., and, after reporting these findings to authorities, the bones are confiscated and locked away. Nobody speaks of them once they’ve been turned in.] Those who contribute the bones to the museum do so in naïve trust that the Smithsonian will appeal to the government for grants and additional research funds, but because of the [Powell Doctrine], the buck stops there, and that in turn affects the budget allowance for universities to follow up with any kind of field study for tomorrow’s generation of scientists. [See how one man with the right political connections in high places can permanently influence an entire country and culture away from absolute, transparent, scientific study? Whatever the truth is—be it in support of or opposition to the reality of giant races on Earth’s soil in ancient times—it’s hidden away and left a mystery. This is one major area where science is not dependable. For what absolute truth can be garnered from only a partial narrative?]
Despite this, well before Powell’s document, the world was aware of bizarre discoveries. Not limited to bones, this also included the strange astronomical and astrological building patterns surrounding ancient structures and monolithic edifices such as those in Baalbek, as well as enormous tools, strange drawings, and prevailing legend of primitive cultures all around the globe. The Smithsonian was not always involved in every discovery reported, which is why the public does not have to search far and wide into the archives of obscurity or conspiracy to be showered with visual evidence that something walked the earth in the old days we can’t explain away.[xv]
As readers of Cloudeaters are aware, this in-depth examination goes on to show earlier Smithsonian literature (as well as sources outside the Smithsonian) that openly documents the discovery of many giant, humanlike bones and other artifacts that present evidence of a bizarre race alive on Earth in the past. In 1910, Dr. Ales Hrdlicka joined the Smithsonian as the first curator of the Division of Physical Anthropology, adding to and strengthening the unfortunate prohibitions of the Powell Doctrine through many aces up his sleeve. So, any chance we may have had to contest Powell’s absolutist, prohibitive and, dare we say, dictatorial limitations on resources that may have otherwise debunked Darwinism were met with yet another wave of resistance. It’s been a never-ending power play by authorities in or connected to the Smithsonian ever since to maintain the “man came from monkeys” curriculum (and other, similar teachings related to the origins of humanity and the cosmos) across the West.
So far, we’ve shown how the Smithsonian—only one of many powerful institutions dedicated to furthering knowledge in areas stemming from science to archeology, anthropology, and innumerable other areas of research while it claims to be unbiased—can place an effective ban across an entire powerful country on any educational curriculum that doesn’t agree with its own agenda. Perhaps this is to save face, because any or all government funding behind it would be halted (or at least dramatically decreased) if it was proved wrong in its previous Darwinian conclusions. Maybe it’s for a more controversial reason, such as the possibility that the chief executives at the Smithsonian don’t want the US to return to Christian values like it might if there really is proof behind biblical claims (Genesis 6:4: “There were giants in those days…”). But whatever the cause, we’ve now shown that all it takes to silence legitimate investigation and direct an entire nation’s attention to one restricted approach in academia is to position oneself or institution as the final authority on the topic and let the layers of tape trickle from the top powers down into society. We’ve also shown that this can spring from one powerful individual, if that person is in the right place at the right time to gain the support of powers in high places.
UP NEXT: Powell and Ussher: Power Compared
[i] Quayle, Stephen, and Dr. Thomas R. Horn, Unearthing the Lost World of the Cloudeaters: Compelling Evidence of the Incursion of Giants, Their Extraordinary Technology, and Imminent Return (Crane, MO: Defender Publishing; 2017), 278.
[ii] Ibid., 278–279.
[iii] As merely one example, see: Cyrus Adler, An Account of the Smithsonian Institution: Its Origin, History, Objects, and Achievements (Smithsonian Press, 1904), 5.
[iv] Quayle and Horn, Unearthing…Cloudeaters, 271.
[v] Ibid., 274.
[vi] Stanley Coren, PhD, “How Many Breeds of Dogs Are There in the World?” May 23, 2013, Psychology Today: Canine Corner, last accessed December 15, 2022, https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/canine-corner/201305/how-many-breeds-dogs-are-there-in-the-world.
[vii] Quayle and Horn, Unearthing…Cloudeaters, 284–285.
[viii] Ibid., 280.
[ix] Ibid., 280–281.
[x] Ibid., 289–290.
[xi] John Wesley Powell, On Limitations to the Use of Some Anthropologic Data (Public domain; Amazon Digital Services LLC, Kindle Edition: 2012), Kindle locations 90–91.
[xii] Ibid., Kindle locations 86–88.
[xiii] Quayle and Horn, Unearthing…Cloudeaters, 290.
[xiv] Ibid., 291–294.
[xv] Ibid., 294–295.
Category: Featured, Featured Articles
