David Rountree: What You Need To Know.

Like a creature returning from a hibernating state, emerging from its lair blinking in the sunlight, then pulling a plug of faeces and hair from its anus for the world to examine, David Rountree has begun to emerge from his self-imposed exile from the paranormal community. Rountree was scheduled to appear as a guest on a paranormal team's radio show a few weeks ago. The appearance didn't go ahead due to a concerted effort from within the paranormal community to inform the hosts about just who and what Rountree is. I won't mention the name of the hosts, simply because they had no idea what they were getting into with Rountree, the opinion of the people I spoke to had in turn spoken to the team mentioned their shock at the magnitude of the reaction to the man.

"I've been caught lying this many times!" Not even close Dave

The aim of this post is to prevent other teams experiencing the same shock and to explain why there is such negative feeling towards this man. What I hope is clear here though is that I don't actually believe Rountree should be "no platformed." I think David shouldn't be denied a platform. But, I do believe that the hosts of shows that intend to feature Rountree have a responsibility to make their audiences aware of who he actually is and crucially who he is not. Rountree can't be allowed to talk with authority on subjects like physics and archaeology, he simply isn't qualified enough to do so, and to allow him to do this is to allow him to badly mislead your audience.  Also, hosts should be aware, based on some of his past actions, he's a pretty shitty human being

Rountree's reappearance in the paranormal field didn't exactly come as a shock to those who follow his activities. He recently began posting on his personal social media about a haunted mirror left at his abode by a girlfriend and "activity" in his attic. Not exactly a smoking gun of a return to the field right? Well, he followed these posts with a long form posting exposing a new paradigm of physics. Like much of what has gone before with Rountree, the explanation of his new theory involves a great deal of terminology used incorrectly, but coherent enough to appear legitimate to the layman.

A sample of his latest musings is below. You'll probably be unsurprised given what you are about to reed that these latest insights are plagiarised also. The original source is the wikpedia page on Materialism.

Following this Roundtree appeared at a Paranormal convention dressed as a child's drawing of an archaeologist.

This brings us to the first thing that potential Rountree hosts should know:

0. Stolen Valour.

This is the elephant in the room and the first thing anyone aiming to discuss Rountree must address. You may be very surprised that I'm not going to dwell on this given how important that is. There's a very simple reason for this: Respect.

I am not, nor will I ever be, a member of the armed forces. I have no family members or close friends in the armed forces. As such I can't fully comprehend the sacrifice that service men and women commit themselves to, especially as they are deployed to combat zones. This doesn't mean I don't consider stolen valour a disgusting and reprehensible act. Far from it. But I believe the criticism of Rountree's actions when he committed this act and falsified his service record should be delivered to you by someone who does understand.

That's why I'm directing you to the blog of No Blue Falcons, who has, alongside others worked tirelessly in exposing him in this area. In these blog postings you will see a wealth of evidence, most notably David's DD214, his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, showing Rountree...

A. Did not serve in Vietnam as he claimed in various sources, most notably the biographies in his published works of fiction.

B. Did not earn the Bronze or Silver star, or any of the medals he both claimed and displayed in social media postings such as this one:

C. Was never certified as an officer, as also claimed.

I'm also going to reproduce No Blue Falcon's justification for pursuing and exposing Roundtree, I have my own reasons which I will lay out in my conclusion, but I concur with the sentiment expressed here:

"In regards to invasion of privacy, invasion of privacy occurs when you publicly disclose private facts not related to public concern. Because Mr. Rountree made so many public claims about his biography and his military service over the years, as well as it is published in his book currently being sold, the claims can be investigated for truth. Furthermore, he instructed the public to “google him” and he is a public figure, as he was on television and continues to do radio shows, has had articles written about him in numerous magazines, and does podcasts. The facts that are shared above about him ARE REFUTING WHAT HE PUT OUT PUBLICLY AND THEREFORE ARE DIRECTLY RELATED TO PUBLIC CONCERN."

You'll find the links to the No Blue Falcons posts in the sources section after my conclusion.
Moving on to my initial involvement with Rountree and his most commonly repeated falsehood. The one that earned him a spot on ghost hunting TV show "Ghost Stalkers".


1. Rountree isn't qualified to talk about physics.

This is the most pertinent point to the post and that future groups that aim to host Rountree must consider. This isn't because Rountree's claims of physics qualifications are an insult to people who dedicate their lives of the discipline, but it's because it is in this area where Rountree initially found fame, it's also the area that he repeatedly returns to when he feels scrutiny is off him. Case in point. Rountree's recent radio appearance was going to revolve around physics and cosmology. See below.

My involvement with Rountree came as a result of his physics claims, and one claim in particular. Rountree claimed that he was not only a PhD in quantum physics but had published a dissertation in the peer-reviewed press. In an attempt to shift focus from the exposure regarding his military service and other aspects of life, Rountree boldly claimed that the problem with his critics was they focused on him personally rather than his "work". I was determined that Rountree wouldn't have this avenue to retreat down anymore by tackling his work head on.

Rountree's main claims in physics revolve around wormholes and the detection of the same. That's what he'll probably want to discuss on your show. I can't stress strongly enough: If Rountree had discovered definitive proof of wormholes, we would be a Nobel Prize holder. Wormholes are purely theoretical at this stage. The world's foremost cosmologists are unsure if they exist, yet Rountree claims not only have discovered them but a method for their detection. The big problem is Rountree doesn't understand physics well enough to make these claims. He tells us that his "wormhole detector" operates by detecting gamma ray emissions. But, he also tells us that wormholes do not have an event horizon or the massive gravity of their cousin black holes. This means that wormholes can't have an accretion disc, a massive spinning disc of blazing hot matter that builds when material feeds into a black hole. The problem with this is that's where the gamma emissions of a black hole emerge from. Wormholes can't have gamma emissions by Rountree's own logic!

You can read my full exposure of David's self published "paper" here. The first thing of note is despite Rountree's claims, his paper was not published in a peer-reviewed journal but on Research Gate which is a "pay to play" journal that will accept any submissions that come with a cheque attached. One of the most shocking things I found regarding Rountree's "work" was not just that it was utterly nonsensical, I expected that. What shocked me, was how little of the paper was actually written by him.

Here's my comparison from a brief section of that post:

Rountree:

Wiki:

Rountree:

Wiki:

Rountree

Wiki:

Even the equations used in the paper are lifted wholesale from Wikipedia, this is clear from the font they are presented in:

Rountree:

Wiki:

Rountree:

Wiki:

So not only is Rountree's work not credible it isn't even his.

We shouldn't be surprised at how poor Rountree's grasp of physics is, so poor he's on record stating that mathematics isn't actually that important in physics. The fact is he doesn't have any qualifications in the subject. Here's what Rountree used to claim on social media regarding his physics background:

After Roundtree's deception regarding his quantum mechanics qualification was exposed he changed "Princeton" in his education bio to a qualification in Physics from "the school of life" (below).

Consider, this is a man who is going to speak to your audiences about physics. A man who confesses the pinnacle of his education is what he's learnt from life in general? Would you let a surgeon who claims he's education in anatomy comes from the school of life? Of course not, and life teaches you a lot more about anatomy than it does about quantum mechanics.

You'll also notice Rountree lists another qualification from the "school of life" Rountree now claims to have a qualification in "archaeology". Unlike his claims with physics Rountree doesn't seem to have made checkable academic claims in this area.

This is a pattern that Roundtree repeats frequently. When he is caught in a lie, he replaces that lie with something equally grandiose but more nebulous and less specific.

2. Rountree isn't an archaeologist either.

After his exposure as a physics fraud, Rountree began appearing on paranormal shows as a "paranormal archaeologist". I consulted many people who have been following Rountree's activities for a long time and not a single one of them remembers a single occasion before Rountree claims were debunked when he mentions being an archaeologist. His claims in this area are less grandiose than the corresponding claims in physics, but they are as easy to debunk. One of the most telling signs, despite claims of attending various archaeological digs, is that Rountree has yet to publish a single image either from a dig or even from any of the various countries he claims to have visited. Not one. And as you can probably see, Dave is a selfie addict. Heck, he even publishes photos from his hospital bed, wearing a lovely... erm... alligator foot?

Let's look at some of Rountree's specific claims regarding archaeology or to be more precise, finds.

Roundtree tells us he has found a "spiritual blade" at an excavation of a temple site. He neglects to mention that this blade can also be found in a slightly less auspicious location, E-Bay.

An amazing find indeed! And a snap at $24 with free postage! This isn't a one-off either. This "9th-10th Century Viking Ring" Rountree claims to have found?

Can also be found on an auction site, or at least a similar one, Live Auctioneers (below).
























No Blue Falcon points out with regards to Rountree's archaeological claims:

"Rountree also claimed to have polished and fixed the box the dagger came in, this can also be bought online. And it is Chinese not Tibetan (below). Tibetan temple artefacts would be held in a holy Tibetan box which would not be readily available. 

Furthermore, anything found on an expedition would not be taken by the "digger" as Rountree claims to be. It would belong to the institution that has the grant and permit for the dig, and would eventually be turned over to authorities for the purpose of historical preservation. If he is restoring these items, as he claims, he has destroyed their authenticity. That's Archaeology 101."

So we can be sure Rountree isn't a physicist or an archaeologist but is there anything he's told us we can be sure of.... Surely there's a limit to the things he is prepared to lie about?

3. Rountree's claims regarding his ethnicity. 

Rountree's habit of shifting from one claim to another extends beyond his academic claims to his ethnic heritage. Initially, Rountree claimed to be of Native American descent, with his mother being Eastern Cherokee and his father part of the Nasemond tribe. No Blue Falcons Points out here that the Nansemond were not the "larger nation" as Rountree claims below. They were part of the Powhatan chiefdom and confined to the VA area. NBF says someone of tribal ancestry would know this.

 I believe much of the reason for this was to appropriate an air of "shamanism" and give Rountree's activities in the paranormal community weight. He claims to be considered an "elder" of certain tribes and a "medicine man".

Roundtree has founded several groups based upon this ethnic identity, in particular, his page "Wolf Shaman" is a striking example of Roundtree's desire to ascribe specialist abilities to himself. Case in point.

When several individuals researched Rountree's actual ethnic origins they found he had essentially falsified his connection to Native Americans. The following E-mail exchange occurred between the blogger No Blue Falcons, who will return to our story in a major way shortly, and the genealogist of the tribe from which Rountree claimed his father belonged to:

When Rountree was exposed with regards to these claims regarding his ethnicity, he once again shifted his story. He became the descendant of "Viking Kings".

The last word regarding Rountree's heritage should go to the person who knows him the best. The only person truly in a position to expose Native American tales of wolf shamanism as completely fallacious. Rountree himself. This post came from a genealogy website Rountree used in 2002.

We can see that Rountree tells a lot of lies. Why does he do it? Essentially I believe that David desires an air of authority. Like many mediums, psychics, demonologists and the like, he seeks to give himself abilities and powers that set him above others in his field. He claims to have access to knowledge beyond that of his peers. His desire to be considered a source of wisdom is telling. Roundtree wants admiration and respect but doesn't want to work to earn it. He seeks it the easy way, by lying to obtain it. 

But your audience's respect and admiration may not be the only thing Rountree seeks to obtain. He's not above using his elevated position to hawk some tat.

4. Roundtree's Merchandise. 

Let's be clear here, Rountree isn't the worst culprit for this in the paranormal field, but that doesn't absolve him from criticism. Rountree not only used his falsified physics education to obtain a position on the short-lived Destination America show "Ghost Stalkers" but he's also used it to sell some utter rubbish to his fellow ghost hunters. In a November 2016 blog Rountree wrote: " I am selling off little by little, the tools and equipment from Spirit Lab. I just have to find the right home for each piece."

Equipment like "the orb sucker" which found its way to a group known as Revenant Research in 2011.

That red bag at the back? It's a handheld vacuum cleaner. Rountree designed an orb removal device that is a vacuum cleaner. Mull that over for a second.

If that's not your speed (bearing in mind that many vacuums have two or more speeds), how about a wormhole detector? A device designed to detect something that is purely theoretical that the greatest minds in science cannot move past hypothesis. Rountree detects them regularly using equipment built from materials from Home Depot.

In case you're wondering, PVC will not contain gamma rays which this claims to detect.

Don't worry if you're not into technology built from vacuum cleaners and PVC rings, Rountree has some more spiritual in nature paraphernalia to sell your audience which he sold via his "wolf creations" page on Facebook, now gone, Rountree now produces and sells Viking pieces in line with his switch in ethnicity.

This one brings death to your enemies, for when shit in a burning bag on a doorstep just won't do! Also note here the two posts pictured below connect David to the aforementioned "Wolf Creations".

David's attitude to his critics brings me to my next point.

5. Rountree doesn't handle criticism well. Understatement.

Let's say you go ahead and feature Rountree on your show, and some of your audience doesn't like him, doesn't rate his ideas or realise he doesn't really know what he's talking about. How is he going to react to that?

Well, he could do what he did to me when I pointed out his error in physics, refuse to answer any of the points put to him, then refuse to allow any other points to be put to him by blocking them.

At least he didn't imply that I was criticising him out of repressing sexual desire as he has done with his female critics.

Pretty mild right? Blocking critics isn't anything extraordinary these days. Well, Roundtree may also respond to criticism in a more extreme way. Including taking shots at a woman's physical disability...

And of the disabilities of one of his critic's children.

I'm not going to share the image Rountree directed to the mother of a child with severe disabilities. I've never asked my readers to take anything on faith, until now. I don't want to see it again, I don't want the lady in question to see it again and I don't want you to see it at all.

Rountree is also not averse to releasing the personal information of at least one of his critics to the public whilst threatening to do this to others. Doxxing is illegal may I add. Ironic as he has also threatened to sue the person in question as well as threatening others with cease and desist notices. One would think this would have been pointed out by his lawyers if he ever consulted one that is.

Insults are one thing, doxing is another. It's particularly chilling as Rountree has explicitly threatened to kill his critics and demonstrated that he has the capability to do just that by displaying weapons in images addressed to his detractors.

Conclusions

You are no doubt getting this right now, this is what you potentially expose your audience to if you chose to engage with Rountree. This is not an honest man and in my humble opinion, not a stable man. Do you really want your audience to be exposed to the things I've discussed in just the above section alone?

Insults, doxing, threats to kill?

If you do, go ahead and feature him on your show. But at least now you'll understand why people react so strongly towards the decision.

Many may wonder what motivated me to write this lengthy post, Rountree has never attacked me after all. Am I just a busy body, jumping into some witch hunt? Well, my issue is one of sacrifice. All the things that Rountree has lied about, taken shortcuts to cease adulation and respect and credibility, those things take sacrifice to achieve.

I'm acutely aware of the sacrifice it takes to achieve a degree in physics. I have two children, a partner and a job. During term time I work until 2 or 3 am on occasion, shower, go to bed, then get up at 7.30 am and head to work.  I take beta blockers to manage stress during exam periods.  I've sat cradling my child with a raging fever, rocking and soothing him, with a text book cracked open in my free hand.

You may think I want sympathy here. Or respect even.

Fuck sympathy. Respect? As Bon Scott once said, "for what?"

I want to know everything I can about physics. I want to share it with the paranormal and skeptical community, to help and inform and dispell ignorance, and have them trust what I am telling them. Not because I speak in jargon or with arrogance, confident in the fact that my audience won't catch me out. Not because I hide from critics, or abuse them, threaten them, say disgusting things about their children. I want to teach my children how amazing our universe is, the profound beauty in nature.

I will get that because I made the sacrifice. I paid my dues.

And my sacrifice is nothing. Nothing.

I know physics professors who battled dyslexia and a fickle and uncaring school system, dragged themselves from working class families in Warrington to Oxford. You all know Stephen Hawking, who was given two years to live after a devastating diagnosis of Lou Gehrig's disease at the age of 21. He is now 75. His survival alone borders on miraculous, the fact that he is the greatest living mind is beyond that. The man transcends a miracle. And I speak of these people because I study physics. The field of archaeology is also built on the sacrifice of its students.

Despite all this, these sacrifices pale in comparison, to that made by those in the armed forces. Those in combat may make the ultimate sacrifice, their families too.

Rountree's easy route to success spits on all of this and that means that it ultimately spits on the spirit of our desire to be better. Not just to appear better to those too ill informed to spot deception.

-Robert Lea,

Skeptic's Boot. 

Thanks and Credit.

I didn't really write this post. I gathered the of several individuals who have spent years dedicated to exposing David Rountree. Their reward for this thus far has been scorn and abuse. They've visited social media in the morning to stare down the barrel of a gun. They've had to deal with the knowledge that this man knows where they live, knows about their disabilities, their children's health and watched as this man and his followers attacked these vulnerabilities. I hope they look at what is posted here as a reward of sorts. They aren't alone. Their message about this man is out there.

Many of these people are wary of being named, others blatantly refused. Given what we've seen, who can blame them.

Special thanks to the team at Beyond Bullshit, Parawood and No Blue Falcons, who have helped me tirelessly over the past week assemble this post. They've been there at all hours of the day to answer my questions. I'm very grateful.

Sources: 
Stolen Valour

https://nobluefalcons.wordpress.com/2016/03/30/david-rountree-and-the-long-awaited-dd214/

https://nobluefalcons.wordpress.com/2015/10/19/the-barney-style-proof-david-rountree-lied/

https://nobluefalcons.wordpress.com/2015/04/17/david-rountrees-lies-come-full-circle/

https://nobluefalcons.wordpress.com/2015/04/11/the-records-prove-stolen-valor-by-tv-personality-and-author-david-rountree/

Rountree's Physics Claims.

http://skepticsboot.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/the-wacky-world-of-david-rountree-phd.html

http://skepticsboot.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/holes-in-theory-review-of-david.html

http://skepticsboot.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/stuffing-turkey-another-round-with.html

Rountree's "Archelogical Finds"

https://www.ebay.com/i/321089418742?chn=ps&dispItem=1

http://www.jasper52.com/blog/lord-of-the-rings-7-viking-rings-with-nordic-symbols/


Rountree's ancestry.

https://www.ancestry.com/boards/thread.aspx?mv=flat&m=198&p=surnames.rountree

https://www.ancestry.com/connect/Profile/0049e887-0003-0000-0000-000000000000

The Skeptic's Bootcast Episode 1: An Extended Examination of Morgue.

A very experimental first episode of what I've labelled the Skeptic's Bootcast can be found here! The episode contains an extended discussion of Morgue, much of the information found in the episode I've already featured in my blog post regarding this dubious chap.

So if the episode is very light on original content what's the point of putting it out there? Frankly, it's simply for the purpose of me playing around with the audio software and giving readers of this blog the opportunity to give me sorely needed feedback. So if you've got any comments or suggestions regarding the episodes let me know.

My plan is to continue to post new episodes here on the blog page with links to sources and images related to the episode.

When I look back at my earlier blog postings I'm pretty embarrassed by them, they are amateurish poorly written and I'm certain I'll feel the same about these early podcasts. The flip side of that is I'm pretty happy with the improvement in later posts. Again this is something I am certain will occur with the podcasts too.

Your feedback will quicken this process.

-Rob.

We Need To Talk. A short Personal Note.

I'm currently beavering away on more Morgue content which I hope to have posted either Wednesday or Thursday night. In the meantime, I wanted to discuss some events which happened last week surrounding my blog post entitled "The Politicization of Science..." As you'll know if you read the post, in it I discussed a 2012 study which was manipulated and misrepresented as support for some rather nasty ideas about women's right to sexual freedom. I originally came across the article I critiqued in the post, on a large Facebook group which I've been posting on for many years. Over this time I felt I'd built a good rapport with the other members of the group and the admins. So much so, that I was happy to be made an admin of the group myself. The article had caused a lot of upset and controversy in the group. When I came across it I thought it was so dishonest, I couldn't properly address it in a short form posting. I felt it warranted a long form post. I set about doing this knowing that it would it somewhat divisive.

What I didn't expect is for the post to be taken down literally within seconds of me posting it. I was messaged by a fellow admin stating that the topic was too controversial and should not be broached on the group again. I strongly disagreed with this decision. Especially when it became clear that this person had not even checked the content of the post. It was simply Verboten in her eyes.
(A few members of the group messaged their support as did two of the admins after the incident, I've still a great deal of respect for the group and there's no hard feelings or animosity. Part of the reason I don't name the group.)

Unfortunately, this event led to me leaving the group. I don't want to be part of any group where the address of "controversial" topics is forbidden. Actually, it's deeper than that... I can't be part of such a group. Especially when these topics concern the wilful misrepresentation of legitimate scientific studies to support backwards and dangerous ideas. Without scrutiny, these ideas don't melt away, they don't recede.

They grow. They fester.

We are at a dangerous point in our development as a species. Our science has outstripped the public's understanding of it. Scientists have failed in attempts to bring the public along with new developments. The mechanics of science, the scientific process is badly misunderstood by the general public who are much more familiar with dogma and the concept that to change one's position based on new information is a sign of weakness. Many laymen see science's greatest strength, it's ability to change, as weakness. We need more science communication. Honest communication. We can't leave the communication of science in the hands of those who view it as a tool in the promotion of partisan politics.

It doesn't matter whether that manipulation emerges from the right, as in the case I mention above or the left.

Likewise, we must be ever vigilant that we dismiss ideas because of their content, not their origin. It's become all too common to see groups close ranks when criticism of closely held ideas arise. Tribalism is rampant. Rejection of contrary ideas to our own all too often occurs because of the discomfort they cause. Commenters are dismissed because of the tone they take, their gender, sexual preference and ethnic origin. We surround ourselves with those of similar views to our own, blissfully unaware we are building echo chambers.

So, what does all this mean for me? Well, I've lost perhaps my biggest platform. Consistently the most likes, comments and shares my posts receive come from that group. You can massively help me here. For the first time, I'm going to solicit for likes, comments and shares on future posts. I'm going to encourage you to subscribe to the blog by clicking follow on my profile.

Your support is. as it always has been, greatly appreciated

Meet Morgue: Proving Some People Will Swallow Anything.

What do you get if you take misunderstood mathematics, half-baked new-age pseudo-philosophy and cult leader like intensity wrap it in Alice Cooper style make-up, plonk Barbie's wig on it and stick it on Youtube?

You get Morgue (left), a self-professed guru who wants to tell you how mathematics shapes reality. He says wants to lead you to what he seems to claim is a new paradigm of reality called Hyperianism.... or at least that's what he says he wants to do. Others may suggest he wants to fill your head with pseudo-intellectual clap-trap in an effort to get your money. They may also suggest that Hyperianism is so vague and nebulous it's clear Morgue is making it up as he goes along. Some may say that during the course of Morgue's videos you'll actually learn nothing barring how you can support him on Patreon. In fact, if you bung him $25 per video he'll swallow a sword for you. But what does he expect you to swallow in return?

This may seem a bit random for a guru such as Morgue to be offering, but it's a call back to his previous occupation as a "sideshow freak". I'm not even kidding here. At a time presumably prior to his great awakening Morgue worked as a "shock artist" hammering nails through his tongue on the Venice beach sidewalk as a member of the "Venice Beach Freakshow" troupe. (below left).

Morgue seems to be heavily inspired by the work of author Mike Hockney who also operates under a series of pseudonyms including but not limited to Michael Faust and Adam Weishaupt. Why so many pseudonyms? I suspect this is related to Hockney's attempt to establish "Pythagorean Illuminism" as the one true religion. Easier to do if several people are writing about it rather than one.

In particular, the similarities include: Morgue places heavy emphasis on Euler's equation as does Hockney. The only difference being Hockney refers to the equation as "the God equation" whilst Morgue calls it the "soul equation", barring this, their interpretations are uniquely nonsensical and as such it feels like the difference in nomenclature is entirely cosmetic.

Also, Morgue describes Hyperianism as "the one true religion" and emphasises it's basis in rationality and mathematics as does Hockney with his "Pythagorean Illuminism". All four have the same grammatical style, favour the same imagery and quote extensively from the same authors and philosophers.They all also hold both science and orthodox religion in contempt. This is despite heavily referencing Christianity, Hockney, Faust and Weishaupt having written several books among them regarding Christianity and Morgue quoting from the book of Enoch. Essentially the two systems are the same barring some jargon. Or as Alan would put it...

Unsurprisingly, I'm going to focus on Morgue's attack on science and his manipulation of logic and maths to support Hyperianism and the alleged benefits of this "new religion". I include time codes for the claims made by Morgue. HIs most explicit comments on science come from his video "Why Science is the new irrational religion." (below).

The nonsense begins immediately: (00:05) "Science's explanations about your existence and purpose are false as those of mainstream religions."

Well, at least this is easy to counter. Science isn't designed to tell you what your purpose is or why you exist. This the job of philosophy or religion, if you choose to engage in those things. If you need to be told your purpose science makes no bones about it: look elsewhere.

(00:25) "(people in/ the people of) Every era thinks that they have everything figured out and the ideas of the past were crazy... in the future what we consider science will be gone..." 

It's completely fallacious to assume that because we've been wrong in the past, we must be wrong now. Many of these eras that Morgue refers to were before the development of the scientific method. It was the advent of science that allowed us to correct the misapprehensions of the past. Are we correct about everything right now? Doubtfully. I'm sure we'll add to our knowledge. Our models if reality will become refined. The problem Morgue has is he doesn't understand the difference between refinement and replacement, as the next quote will establish.

(03:01) "Classical mechanics was once considered to be absolutely correct... Today it is known that classical mechanics is completely and utterly wrong... It's been replaced by quantum mechanics..."

This is completely and utterly wrong, quantum mechanics did not replace classical mechanics. Newton's laws of motions were not replaced, and still, provide the best explanation of the behaviour of macroscopic systems. Quantum mechanics simply added to classical mechanics, adding a framework that allows us to model microscopic systems. Likewise, Einstein's theory of general relativity did not replace Newton's law of gravity. It added to it. Classical mechanics did not accurately describe very large and very small objects, that's all. One of the most startling things about both additional theories is when we adjust parameters to those of everyday objects, the laws of classical mechanics are recovered. In quantum physics, we refer to this as the correspondence principle. We'll come back to classical mechanics in a moment.

(1:29) Morgue claims that science forgoes rationality in favour of knowledge gained through "sense data". Hyperianism, he claims forgoes this inductive method favouring instead a deductive method. 

There's no doubt that deduction is a safer way of ascertaining knowledge than induction, but the problem is that ultimately any assessment of reality must rely somewhere on induction and sense data. What Morgue falls into here is the Presuppositional apologetics style of argumentation adopted by some creationists in recent years. He wants his method of data gathering to be extra-sensory so he can claim that it trumps science, but this requires him to claim he has a method of acquiring data that is not delivered through the senses. This requires the claimant to regress to divine intervention as even mathematics must be assessed by the senses!

Where is Morgue getting his data from if not his senses?

He never tells us.

Whilst he is correct in his assessment of science using induction, this isn't necessarily a weakness. Even the most robust physical law, such as the first law of thermodynamics, "In a thermodynamic process involving a closed system, the increment in the internal energy is equal to the difference between the heat accumulated by the system and the work done by it." is based on induction. We can't know this law holds in every part of the universe. We can only say that in all cases we examine this law is sound. This is the axiom of the uniformity of law. If a scientific law holds "here" it must hold "there", if it holds "now" it must hold "then".

To see how induction can be better than deduction, consider this example:
Induction tells us down syndrome sufferers possess a third copy of chromosome 21. We know this because thus far every Down's Syndrome sufferer we've examined has possessed this attribute. We've never found this in a subject who does not suffer from this condition. Morgue would argue that system operates on deduction, but without empiricism. So his deduction using logic alone would be:

Premise 1: Gerry has a third copy of chromosome 21.

Premise 2: All people with a third copy of chromosome 21 have Down's syndrome.

Conclusion: Therefore, Gerry has Down's syndrome.

That's great and it's correct. But with empirical testing, which Morgue condemns how do we check premise 1 and 2 are correct? In Hyperianism the above statement is as accurate as this one:

Premise 1: Sam has blond hair.

Premise 2: All people with blond hair have Down's syndrome.

Conclusion: Therefore, Sam has Down's syndrome.

Clearly logic without empiricism doesn't necessarily lead to accurate models of reality as we have no way of verifying the premises. If we can experiment, It tells us nothing. Likewise, if Morgue sacrifices the axiom of uniformity, a Down's syndrome marker may be a third chromosome 21 today, not every other day. It may be a marker in Warrington, but not in Wichita.

Morgue's main misunderstanding of science is exemplified by the following quote:

(03:25) "Just because science comes up with material inventions does not mean they (scientists) know the truth about reality. Just because science came up with smart phones and smart pads doesn't mean they know anything about reality..."

Sorry Morgue, but it categorically does mean that! The fact that the models of reality provided by science have utility and have delivered an untold amount of innovation tells us that these models are correct. Morgue compares this innovation to a person praying for another's recovery from an illness and that person actual recovery having nothing to do with this prayer. Agreed. The subject's recovery is a correlated event, but how can we possibly say that the invention of the iPhone was just correlated with the discovery of the microchip without causation. Its operation, Morgue tells us by extension, would be the same even if Maxwell hadn't successfully mapped equations describing electromagnetic radiation leading to the revolution in physics that occurred at the turn of the 20th Century.

(04:23) "even though classical mechanics is 100% wrong it allowed us to put a man on the moon"

I don't really know how to respond to that statement. I suppose all one can ask is how Morgue proposes we reached the moon?

Morgue repeats this claim about classical mechanics over and over again during the video. Clearly, it's his main point and it's about as flawed as a claim can possibly be.

 (06:00) "Science should develop a system based on mathematics."

It's patently clear from the above statement that Morgue has never studied physics. A science that is simply an extension of mathematics. Laws of physics are described mathematically before they are described with terminology. The other sciences hardly do away with mathematical description either. For example, mathematical models are vital in population biology. It's irritating how Morgue seems intent on claiming exclusivity for mathematics to his crackpot religion.

(06:40) The science doesn't know everything argument.

I'm not going to quote directly here, simply because Morgue sets up a long-winded analogy about aliens and tables just to tell us that science is flawed because it hasn't yet discovered everything. It's an argument I'm sure we're all familiar with. Morgue reels off a list of components of a table until he reaches the fundamental particles. But like a man driving towards a cliff top he's ignoring the signs on the way warning him of the drop. The reason Morgue can reel off these ever minute components down to fundamental particles is because of the remarkable success of the scientific method. We've probed deeper into nature than ever could have been dreamed by Democritus, the ancient Greek philosopher who first posited the idea of a final undividable state of matter, the atom. Theory and mathematical models have taken us further than the sculptor's blade, further than even the electron microscopic. And it will take us further still. That infinite regression of Morgue's, so loved by creationists, will become more lengthy as time goes on. It may always have an "ah-ha" point where the Luddites can reel off names no longer and thus proudly boast "science doesn't know everything then!" but that point will take longer and longer to reach. Perhaps even long enough to make even dumbest journeymen realise how far science has taken them from their initial point.

(07:57) "If you can't account for what everything is made of, you can't account for anything at all"

So I can't think of a better point than to turn the tables on Morgue. Can he account for what everything is made of? No. Well, I guess we're in the same fucking boat then! Expect in our science boat we've got wonderful things like the internet you're using to stream your bullshit to an audience anywhere in the world in the blink of an eye. We've got models of reality that have proven utility. What has your boat got in it?

Where are the results of the utility of your theory mate?

Morgue quotes Max Planck during his video (below), it's a common theme that runs through his videos. He frequently quotes scientists or philosophers in a way that is designed to lead his viewers to believe they somehow support his view of the world, of reality and of science.

I feel it's fitting to end this analysis of this particular video with another quote from Planck:

Sounds like Planck wouldn't have been sold on Hyperianism. Morgue tells us "Hyperianism rejects scientific materialism. " It's outmoded and outdated. Morgue says this whilst profiting from the advancements made by science. Isn't that hypocritical? Fear not though, hypocrisy comes naturally to Morgue. In another video, he condemns social media, then urges his followers to "like, comment, share and subscribe". In the same vlog he condemns the spending of money on fads and trends, consumers are dogs he tells us. Then he urges followers to visit his Patreon where at the modest price of $25 dollars a video, he'll shove a sword down his neck for you!

And it's working for him. Currently, 243 followers are paying Morgue $1,777 per video. In fact, 2 followers are paying him $250 per video. I hope they're reading this. Hey you two, he thinks you're his dogs. He says so right in his "Higher Entities" video. But he's grateful though. 

In my next post, I'll look at another of Morgue's videos and how he explicitly claims mathematics and in particular Euler's formula supports Hyperianism. In doing so we'll try to nail down what Hyperianism actually is, and in delving deeper we will discover the worryingly cult-like undertones involved here.

The Politicization Of Science: How the study "Male Microchimerism in the Human Female Brain" became the news story "Women Absorb And Retain DNA From Every Man They Have Sex With"

In this post, I intend to look at the journey a scientific study has taken on it's way to being disseminated to general public, something we've covered before on this blog when we examined how a study regarding experiences during death was transformed via the news media and the blogosphere to being a study regarding deathbed visitations by the ghosts of dead loved ones. The difference with today's post and that previous post is that the lens the study will pass through today is not a paranormal one but a political one. The distortion of this particular study has led to a rather disturbing and distasteful series of stories and headlines to appear on social media bringing along with them toxic threads which are pretty rampant with misogyny.

 Let's start by looking at the Newswire story which is, as far as I can see, where this interpretation of the story originated from, published on 23/06/17, and authored by "Baxter Dmitry" found in the health section of the site. The headline of the article states: "Women Absorb And Retain DNA From Every Man They Have Sex With." and author claims this is backed up by a scientific study, but is this even remotely true?

 The article begins:

"Women retain and carry living DNA from every man with whom they have sexual intercourse, according to a new study by the University of Seattle and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center."

A new study? Actually no, the research referenced in the story was published in Plos One in September 2012. I guess Baxter couldn't write that though as it would relegate his story to... erm... not news. This isn't a good sign. We haven't moved past the first paragraph and there's a blatant obscuring of the truth already! In fact, there's two. When Baxter refers to "a new study" it hides the fact that he is going to perform a blatant bait and switch and start talking about a different study midway through the article when it suits his agenda.

 "The study, which discovered the startling information by accident, was originally trying to determine if women who have been pregnant with a son might be more predisposed to certain neurological diseases that occur more frequently in males. 

But as the scientists picked apart the female brain, the study began to veer wildly off course. As it turns out, the female brain is even more mysterious than we previously thought.
The study found that female brains often harbor “male microchimerism“, or in other words, the presence of male DNA that originated from another individual, and are genetically distinct from the cells that make up the rest of the woman."

All of which is a half arsed interpretation of what the researchers actually did, They took samples from 57 deceased elderly women's brains and searched them for a Y-chromosome specific gene, DYS14, the presence of which should indicate Y-chromosomes in the female brain. Note something of importance here that none of the "news" stories that have cropped up around this study will tell you. The sample size was 57 cadavers. That is an extremely small sample size to make an induction such as this article makes, even if that was the conclusion the researchers came to. Which it isn't.

Microchimerism isn't a new concept by any stretch, and it's accepted that mothers who have carried a male child will exchange DNA with that child, the presence of male DNA in women who have carried male offspring helped determine that foetal DNA exchange occurs. A finding that would be invalidated if the article in question's conclusions is correct. According to this author, EVERY woman who has ever had intercourse with a man should show signs of male microchimerism. The researchers in question concluded that in most cases the presence of DYS14 in the 63% of samples studied were a result of the deceased mothers carrying a male child at some point. Where the article makes its main leap of logic is the assumption of the origin of DYS14 in the samples from women who have never carried a male child.

"Through the study the researchers assumed that the most likely answer was that all male DNA found living in the female brain came from a male pregnancy. That was the safe, politically correct assumption. But these researchers were living in denial. Because when they autopsied the brains of women who had never even been pregnant, let alone with a male child, they STILL found male DNA cells prevalent in the female brain."

GASP! This is remarkable! Or... it would be if it were even remotely fucking true! I quote from the study itself:

"Limited pregnancy history was available on the subjects; pregnancy history on most subjects was unknown." (Chan, Gurnot, et al, Male Microchimerism in the Human Female Brain, Sept 2012)

In fact, all the researchers were certain of was that only two of the subjects definitely had no male offspring. So they had no way of determining whether male microchimerism in the samples was due to pregnancy. Further to this, the researchers had no access to the subjects full medical history and therefore no way of knowing if abortions or miscarriage could account for the presence of male chromosomes in the samples. Couple this with the researcher's wariness regarding the high potential of cross contamination even if this information was known.

The researchers are clear about the conclusions of the study:

"The most likely source of male Mc in female brain is acquisition of fetal Mc from pregnancy with a male fetus. In women without sons, male DNA can also be acquired from an abortion or a miscarriage [22], [23], [38]–[40]. The pregnancy history was unknown for all but a few subjects in the current studies, thus male Mc in female brain could not be evaluated according to specific prior pregnancy history. In addition to prior pregnancies, male Mc could be acquired by a female from a recognized or vanished male twin [41]–[43], an older male sibling, or through non-irradiated blood transfusion [44]. (Chan, Gurnot, et al, Male Microchimerism in the Human Female Brain, Sept 2012)"

Unfortunately, this angers Baxter, he despite seemingly having no experience or qualifications in genetics or biology, knows better and sees deception in this conclusion:

"At this point the scientists didn’t know what the hell was going on. Confused, they did their best to hide the evidence until they could understand and explain it. They buried it in numerous sub studies and articles, but if you sift through them all you will find the damning statement, the one line that gives the game away and explains exactly where these male DNA cells come from."

Erm... this narrative seems to imply Baxter was there when the results of the study were examined and completely ignores the fact the researchers had extremely limited knowledge of any of the subject's history. The fact is they aren't studying what Baxter seems to imply they are. The study isn't designed, or capable of discovering what Baxter concludes from it! One has to wonder why Baxter bothered to cite the study at all? It doesn't support the conclusion he draws, so much so Baxter has to say the researchers hid his conclusion!

To demonstrate this Baxter quotes this from the study's conclusion:

CONCLUSIONS: Male microchimerism was not infrequent in women without sons. Besides known pregnancies, other possible sources of male microchimerism include unrecognized spontaneous abortion, vanished male twin, an older brother transferred by the maternal circulation, or SEXUAL INTERCOURSE. Male microchimerism was significantly more frequent and levels were higher in women with induced abortion than in women with other pregnancy histories. Further studies are needed to determine specific origins of male microchimerism in women.

The problem is this doesn't come from the 2012 study, it's the conclusion taken from an earlier 2005 study. Not that Baxter is going to inform his readers of that. He's relying on the fact they are too lazy or stupid to check his sources.

"So according to the scientists, the possible sources of the male DNA cells living in the women’s brains are: 

1. an abortion the woman didn’t know about
2. a male twin that vanished
3. an older brother transferred by the maternal circulation
4. sexual intercourse.."

 At no point in either study do the researchers even hint at point four. This is Baxter's conclusion pulled from literally nowhere, replacing the researcher's actual fourth conclusion miscarriage and they're fifth conclusion blood transfusion or organ donation. Point 1 also disingenuously implies that Baxter believes the researchers collected information from the women after the study, ridiculous as they were fucking cadavers at the time!

Further to this Baxter then goes back to the 2012 study, conflating it with the conclusions taken from the 2005 study to seriously misrepresent it. The 63% result was found in the 2012 study, not the 2005 study, which found the prevalence of microchimerism to be much lower in women without male children, Bearing that in mind should show just how deceptive the following statement is:

"The first three options apply to a very small percentage of women. They couldn’t possibly account for the 63% figure." 

Yes, Baxter, but considering the 2012 study, the one you're actually meant to be looking at, the one whose result you quote, you forgot to discount the major option the subjects who had male children! Hardly rare. In fact, if you collected a sample of 57 women in their old age (don't forget this was a study of Alzheimer's and other degenerative disorders and their connection to Microchimerism) you wouldn't be terribly surprised if you learned 63% of them had a male child!  Note also that approximately one in six pregnancy end in miscarriage, and as these are likely elderly women we can expect that figure was much higher during their childbearing years.

At this point Baxter abandons any attempt to hide his true agenda, he extrapolates the result of the study beyond all credibility, and enters into a pure morality lesson for women without even a smattering of fact or evidence:

"This has very important ramifications for women. Every male you absorb spermatazoa from becomes a living part of you for life. The women autopsied in this study were elderly. Some had been carrying the living male DNA inside them for well over 50 years." 

There simply isn't any evidence of this, spermatozoa haven't been found to "be absorbed"  by the female body at any point, as far is we know sperm that fails to fertilise is destroyed by white blood cells. But in Baxter's World sperm is a formidable opponent indeed.

"Sperm is alive. It is living cells. When it is injected into you it swims and swims until it crashes headlong into a wall, and then it attaches and burrows into your flesh. If it’s in your mouth it swims and climbs into your nasal passages, inner ear, and behind your eyes. Then it digs in. It enters your blood stream and collects in your brain and spine.

Like something out of a scifi movie, it becomes a part of you and you can’t get rid of it."

What? I think Baxter has sperm confused with the chest-buster from Alien.

 

A look through Baxter's history as an author on Newswire highlights his political bias, pro-Trump/anti-Clinton stories implying he's a staunch Republican. Frankly, I don't care about a person's personal politics but the attempt to view science through a political lens is extremely damaging and unfortunately, it's not a crime unique to the right. Likely, much of the push back against this blog post will involve my own personal politics, something that should be conspicuous by its absence in my analysis of the actual study involved here. The danger here is an ideologue like Baxter is giving the impression that there is some research that actually backs up this utter nonsense, There simply isn't. There are plenty of people out there to take this politically malformed science and use it to support outmoded misogynistic ideas regarding the right of women to have as many sexual partners as they chose. If you think this is hyperbole, find me an iteration of this story that warns men to be choosy of their sexual partners because some women may hang on to their DNA! You won't. Nor will you find a story in which these supposed findings are used to support the practice of safe sex.

Although, I presume Baxter believes his Wolverine like sperm would make short work of a thin layer of latex!