Tuesday, December 12, 2017

Scientific Proof Is A Myth




The idea of proof is best described as  the output of a logical process whose domain set  can be quite fuzzy and it assumed to be fuzzy when applied to science generally.  Thus fuzzy input strongly suggests fuzzy output.  But it is still logical proof, but strictly constrained by the parameters produced by fuzzyness.

Thus the headline statement is false by the forgoing statement.  What is completely true is that all scientific data is fuzzy and output must be at least as fuzzy.

My own work provides an exact model to completely describe the universe itself from only the acceptance that we or at least I exist. Yet that model does not become effectively measurable until multiple orders of magnitude larger than the scale of the first particle.  That alone prevent measurable 'proof'.

Yet my model is plausibly susceptible to a proof of uniqueness. That is one and only one way in which to create the universe. That is good..



Scientific Proof Is A Myth



Nov 22, 2017 


https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/#75b036342fb1


Starts With A Bang The Universe is out there, waiting for you to discover it Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own. Ethan Siegel , Contributor

 


 NASA, ESA, and Johan Richard (Caltech, USA); Acknowledgements: Davide de Martin & James Long (ESA/Hubble)



This image illustrates a gravitational lensing effect due to the distortion of space by mass. This is one prediction where Einstein's theory of relativity gave the right answer where Newton's did not. But even with this, it's impossible to 'prove' Einstein right.

You've heard of our greatest scientific theories: the theory of evolution, the Big Bang theory, the theory of gravity. You've also heard of the concept of a proof, and the claims that certain pieces of evidence prove the validities of these theories. Fossils, genetic inheritance, and DNA prove the theory of evolution. The Hubble expansion of the Universe, the evolution of stars, galaxies, and heavy elements, and the existence of the cosmic microwave background prove the Big Bang theory. And falling objects, GPS clocks, planetary motion, and the deflection of starlight prove the theory of gravity.

Except that's a complete lie. While they provide very strong evidence for those theories, they aren't proof. In fact, when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility.

 

Art by Karen Teramura, UH IfA with James O’Donoghue and Luke Moore



In theory, the differing properties of Jupiter's great red spot, distinct from the rest of the atmosphere, could be related to thermal differences coming from below. Even if the evidence comes in to support this idea, it won't constitute scientific proof.

Reality is a complicated place. All we have to guide us, from an empirical point of view, are the quantities we can measure and observe. Even at that, those quantities are only as good as the tools and equipment we use to make those observations and measurements. Distances and sizes are only as good as the measuring sticks you have access to; brightness measurements are only as good as your ability to count and quantify photons; even time itself is only known as well as the clock you have to measure its passage. No matter how good our measurements and observations are, there's a limit to how good they are.





 


John D. Norton







A light-clock, formed by a photon bouncing between two mirrors, will define time for an observer. Even the theory of special relativity, with all the experimental evidence for it, can never be proven.

We also can't observe or measure everything. Even if the Universe weren't subject to the fundamental quantum rules that govern it, along with all its inherent uncertainty, it wouldn't be possible to measure every state of every particle under every condition all the time. At some point, we have to extrapolate. This is incredibly powerful and incredibly useful, but it's also incredibly limiting.



 

NASA





The curvature of space means that clocks that are deeper into a gravitational well -- and hence, in more severely curved space -- run at a different rate than ones in a shallower, less-curved portion of space. While our predictions for GPS satellites work extraordinarily well, even this cannot 'prove' that General Relativity is correct.

In order to come up with a model capable of predicting what will happen under a variety of conditions, we need to understand a few things.
What we're capable of measuring, and to what precision.
What's been measured thus far, under specific initial conditions.
What laws hold for these phenomena, i.e., what observed relationships exist between specific quantities.
And what the limits are for the things we presently know.

If you understand these things, you have the right ingredients to formulate a scientific theory: a framework for explaining what we already know happens as well as predicting what will happen under new, untested circumstances.



 

NASA / STScI / A. Felid





If you look farther and farther away, you also look farther and farther into the past. The farthest we can see back in time is 13.8 billion years: our estimate for the age of the Universe. It's the extrapolation back to the earliest times that led to the idea of the Big Bang. While everything we observe is consistent with the Big Bang framework, it's not something that can ever be proven.

Our best theories, like the aforementioned theory of evolution, the Big Bang theory, and Einstein's General Relativity, cover all of these bases. They have an underlying quantitative framework, enabling us to predict what will happen under a variety of situations, and to then go out and test those predictions empirically. So far, these theories have demonstrated themselves to be eminently valid. Where their predictions can be described by mathematical expressions, we can tell not only what should happen, but by how much. For these theories in particular, among many others, measurements and observations that have been performed to test these theories have been supremely successful.

But as validating as that is — and as powerful as it is to falsify alternatives — it's completely impossible to prove anything in science.



 

 Paul Dawkins / Lamar University








A mathematical proof that the derivative of [f(x) - g(x)] equals the derivative of f(x) minus the derivative of g(x). In science, even mathematical proofs are less than 100% certain, as it's not 100% certain that the mathematical rules apply to your physical system.

In science, at its best, the process is very similar, but with a caveat: you never know when your postulates, rules, or logical steps will suddenly cease to describe the Universe. You never know when your assumptions will suddenly become invalid. And you never know whether the rules you successfully applied for situations A, B, and C will successfully apply for situation D.



 


Larry McNish of RASC Calgary Center





It isn't simply that galaxies are moving away from us that causes a redshift, but rather that the space between ourselves and the galaxy redshifts the light on its journey from that distant point to our eyes. Of course, this is predicated on an assumption whose validity we have no way of testing. If it's wrong, so may be all the conclusions we draw from this.

It's a leap of faith to assume that it will, and while these are often good leaps of faith, you cannot prove that these leaps are always valid. If the laws of nature change over time, or behave differently under different conditions, or in different directions or locations, or aren't applicable to the system you're dealing with, your predictions will be wrong. And that's why everything we do in science, no matter how well it gets tested, is always preliminary.





Thomas Gutierrez, who insists there is one 'sign error' in this equation




The Standard Model Lagrangian is a single equation encapsulating the particles and interactions of the Standard Model. It has five independent parts: the gluons (1), the weak bosons (2), how matter interacts with the weak force and the Higgs field (3), the ghost particles that subtract the Higgs-field redundancies (4), and the Fadeev-Popov ghosts, which affect the weak interaction redundancies (5). Neutrino masses are not included. Also, this is only what we know so far; it may not be the full Lagrangian describing 3 of the 4 fundamental forces.

Even in theoretical physics, the most mathematical of all the sciences, our "proofs" aren't on entirely solid ground. If the assumptions we make about the underlying physical theory (or its mathematical structure) no longer apply — if we step outside the theory's range of validity — we'll "prove" something that turns out not to be true. If someone tells you a scientific theory has been proven, you should ask what they mean by that. Normally, they mean "they've convinced themselves that this thing is true," or they have overwhelming evidence that a specific idea is valid over a specific range. But nothing in science can ever truly be proven. It's always subject to revision.

 

public domain work from Andreas Knecht




In the standard model, the neutron's electric dipole moment is predicted to be a factor of ten billion larger than our observational limits show. The only explanation is that somehow, something beyond the Standard Model is protecting this CP symmetry. We can demonstrate a lot of things in science, but proving that CP is conserved in the strong interactions can never be done.

This doesn't mean it's impossible to know anything at all. To the contrary, in many ways, scientific knowledge is the most "real" knowledge that we can possibly gain about the world. But in science, nothing is ever proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. As Einstein himself once said:


The scientific theorist is not to be envied. For Nature, or more precisely experiment, is an inexorable and not very friendly judge of his work. It never says "Yes" to a theory. In the most favorable cases it says "Maybe," and in the great majority of cases simply "No." If an experiment agrees with a theory it means for the latter "Maybe," and if it does not agree it means "No." Probably every theory will someday experience its "No"—most theories, soon after conception.

 


© ABCC Australia 2015 www.new-physics.com



The idea of unification holds that all three of the Standard Model forces, and perhaps even gravity at higher energies, are unified together in a single framework. This idea is powerful, has led to a great deal of research, but is a completely unproven conjecture. Nevertheless, many physicists are convinced this is an important approach to understanding nature.



So don't try to prove things; try to convince yourself. And be your own harshest critic and your own greatest skeptic. Every scientific theory will someday fail, and when it does, that will herald a new era of scientific inquiry and discovery. And of all the scientific theories we've ever come up with, the best ones succeed for the longest amounts of time and over the greatest ranges possible. In some sense, it's better than a proof: it's the most correct description of the physical world humanity has ever imagined.




Astrophysicist and author Ethan Siegel is the founder and primary writer of Starts With A Bang! His books, Treknology and Beyond The Galaxy, are available wherever books are sold.

Muir: "People Are Going To Be Wiped Out" By Short-VIX ETFs

 

Key warning.   The present market has now built up a catastrophic level of leverage and a completely reasonable move will likely crater the brokerage industry itself.  The prudent man not only exits the clearly super leveraged securities if he is aboard at all, but also shifts his capital into safe haven securities or even into cash.


Right now the Bitcoin market boom has made folks seriously reckless.   Yet Bitcoin is no stock.  It is something uniquely different and will not impact stocks directly but has encouraged a crowd of doubtful stock scammers.  look out.  Through all this we have built up a dangerous appetite for unwinnable risks.


As said by many in our distant past, many stock booms ago, even a turkey flies in a high wind.


.
Muir: "People Are Going To Be Wiped Out" By Short-VIX ETFs


Nov 25, 2017 10:07 PM

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-25/muir-traders-dont-understand-risks-shorting-vol

Back in August, we highlighted a story in the New York Times about a former manager at Target who decided to try day trading with $500,000 he had saved up. Over the following years, he turned that into $13 million by following one simple strategy: Shorting volatility every time it spiked.

As MacroVoices host Erik Townsend points out, that strategy has worked for many retail investors over the past eight years. And in a brief “postgame” interview with the Macro Tourist Kevin Muir following a longer interview with Francesco Filia, a fund manager at Fasanara Capital, the former explains how many investors don’t understand the risks associated with shorting volatility, as well as the possible repercussions if exchanges and brokerages don’t take the appropriate steps to limit this.

Townsend begins the discussion by asking Muir about a chart he created of the VXX - the long-VIX ETF - which, because of the low-volatility environement, has repeatedly split leading to unbelievable wealth destruction.



Going back to 2009, the price of the ETF has gone from $120,000 a share to just $35. And while a sudden spike in volatility could see it surge, with so many investors on the other side of the trade, it's worth considering what might happen if they couldn't pay.

It’s frightening. And I don’t think enough people are – well, there are some – but I don’t think that enough people are really considering all these things. And I think that guys like the Interactive Broker chairman, that are taking proactive steps to make sure that there’s enough margin, we need to see more of that. We need to see more people saying, hey, wait, this is actually a very, very scary instrument that has a lot of risk in it.

I watched a Real Vision interview with John Hempton from Bronte Capital, and he talked about phoning up the infamous Target salesman guy, the fellow that quit his job as a Target manager to trade XIV and all the VXX products, and he turned his 1/2 a million bucks into 13 million bucks. The part that really scared me about it was that John phoned him up and he was expecting to talk to this very sophisticated guy, and his basic takeaway was that, although he had a lot of buzzwords, and he understood kind of what the products represented, he didn’t really understand his true risk.

And I think that there’s just a myriad of people out there that are trading these things that don’t understand that. The more people that wake up and realize this, and stop playing this game, the better off we’ll be, actually.

Brokerages have caught on to this, Muir says. Interactive Brokers, one of the largest online brokerages, is now asking retail investors to post between 300%-400% margin when they short certain VIX contracts – because brokerages recognize that one sharp drawdown in the S&P 500 could blow millions of short traders out of their positions, potentially leaving thousands of customers with massive negative balances that could threaten the brokerages’ existence.

Erik, you’re absolutely correct. And Interactive Brokers, one of the largest electronic brokers out there, realizes the risk. If you look at the way that they’re margining these products, they’re margining them completely different than what the exchanges and everyone else say is the proper amount.

So if you look at the VIX futures, the front month is $6,200 – the exchange minimum is $6,200 – which works out to roughly 50% of a contract. The next month is $4,000, which works out to 30% of a contract. And the far months are $2,500, which works out to 17% of a contract.

But if you go to Interactive Brokers and you want to sell this VIX contract short, you have to put up 300%–400% of the contract. Because they’ve looked at it and they’ve realized that if the S&P has a 10% down move, which isn’t out of the realm of possibility, that the VIX could spike up to 37 really easily. And people are going to be wiped out if that happens.

Should the VIX suddenly spike, the repercussions of such a move would be further complicated by the billions of dollars sitting in various VIX-linked ETFs. Because individuals sellers would probably disappear from the market in such a situation, the ETF market makers would find it nearly impossible to hedge their positions, potentially triggering the dissolution of the funds, or even the collapse of some of these firms.

There’s $1.2 billion of the XIV, which is the short ETF. There’s $1.3 billion of the SVXY, which is another short one. These are staggering numbers.

In my days, when I was on the institutional desk, we had this big – I did index arbitrage, and we used to go out and buy the baskets and sell the futures. One day the risk manager came to me and said, if you had to take this position off (because we had accumulated this big position) how long would it take you? And who would do it?

And I said, the reality is that there’s nobody. You know, we were the biggest player in the market and there was nobody that was going to take this off of us. The only way was to go all the way to expiry.

Well, the reality is that these numbers are way bigger than any market player can absorb. And, if we get a situation where – as Francesco says, all it’s going to take is a return of the VIX from its current level of 10 to its average level of 18 or 19 to wipe out these products.

I guess that’s the point that I want to make: If you’re actually owning these things, you should be aware that all it will take is a move of 80% and then they’re going to wind down these products. So the XIV, when it moves up, if all of a sudden VIX goes from 10 to 18 in a day, they’re going to wind down that product.

And what’s going to be really scary is the amount of VIX futures that is going to have to be bought, because they’re short all those VIX futures and they’re going to have to buy them back.

And I just don’t know who’s going to sell it to them. For the first time – for a long time, I didn’t view this VIX as that big a deal, and there were some smart guys like Jesse Felder that were going on about it – I just think that it has been taken to a level that is becoming increasingly worrisome. And it actually could create a market dislocation in itself.

And what is it Warren Buffett says? What the wise man does in the beginning the fool does in the end. Well, VIX, at this point, we’re hitting a point where if you’re actually continuing to bet on it you’re going to be in the fool category.

Because it’s not going to take much to have a big spike that wipes a lot of people out. And it’s actually very, very worrisome.

Physicists Just Found a Loophole in Graphene That Could Unlock Clean, Limitless Energy




This is actually seriously neat.  Continuously responding to ambient heat allows voltage a harvesting on a chip which may well be suffice to drive the device.  May also be able to convert that energy into a coherent radiation source which will make for a near loss free system.

Still a ways to get thee but we are surely half way there for recognizing what is happening mechanically.

all Good.  It also seriously informs us that the actual graphene surface is not stable at all.  Much trickier than that and now potential much more useful as well.

.
Physicists Just Found a Loophole in Graphene That Could Unlock Clean, Limitless Energy
Holy crap.

MIKE MCRAE

24 NOV 2017

http://www.sciencealert.com/graphene-levy-flights-limitless-power-future-electronic-devices

By all measures, graphene shouldn't exist. The fact it does comes down to a neat loophole in physics that sees an impossible 2D sheet of atoms act like a solid 3D material.

New research has delved into graphene's rippling, discovering a physical phenomenon on an atomic scale that could be exploited as a way to produce a virtually limitless supply of clean energy.

The team of physicists led by researchers from the University of Arkansas didn't set out to discover a radical new way to power electronic devices.

Their aim was far more humble – to simply watch how graphene shakes.

We're all familiar with the gritty black carbon-based material called graphite, which is commonly combined with a ceramic material to make the so-called 'lead' in pencils.

What we see as smears left by the pencil are actually stacked sheets of carbon atoms arranged in a 'chicken wire' pattern. Since these sheets aren't bonded together, they slide easily over one another.

For years scientists wondered if it was possible to isolate single sheets of graphite, leaving a 2-dimensional plane of carbon 'chicken wire' to stand on its own.

In 2004 a pair of physicists from the University of Manchester achieved the impossible, isolating sheets from a lump of graphite that were just an atom thick.

To exist, the 2D material had to be cheating in some way, acting as a 3D material in order to provide some level of robustness.

It turns out the 'loophole' was the random jiggling of atoms popping back and forth, giving the 2D sheet of graphene a handy third dimension.

In other words, graphene was possible because it wasn't perfectly flat at all, but vibrated on an atomic level in such a way that its bonds didn't spontaneously unravel.

To accurately measure the level of this jiggling, physicist Paul Thibado recently led a team of graduate students in a simple study.

They laid sheets of graphene across a supportive copper grid and observed the changes in the atoms' positions using a scanning tunneling microscope.

While they could record the bobbing of atoms in the graphene, the numbers didn't really fit any expected model. They couldn't reproduce the data they were collecting from one trial to the next.

"The students felt we weren't going to learn anything useful," says Thibado, "but I wondered if we were asking too simple a question."

Thibado pushed the experiment into a different direction, searching for a pattern by changing the way they looked at the data.

"We separated each image into sub-images," says Thibado.

"Looking at large-scale averages hid the different patterns. Each region of a single image, when viewed over time, produced a more meaningful pattern."

The team quickly found the sheets of graphene were buckling in way not unlike the snapping back and forth of a bent piece of thin metal as it's twisted from the sides.

Patterns of small, random fluctuations combining to form sudden, dramatic shifts are known as Lévy flights. While they've been observed in complex systems of biology and climate, this was the first time they'd been seen on an atomic scale.

By measuring the rate and scale of these graphene waves, Thibado figured it might be possible to harness it as an ambient temperature power source.

So long as the graphene's temperature allowed the atoms to shift around uncomfortably, it would continue to ripple and bend.

Place electrodes to either side of sections of this buckling graphene, and you'd have a tiny shifting voltage.

This video clip below explains the process in detail:

By Thibado's calculations, a single ten micron by ten micron piece of graphene could produce ten microwatts of power.

It mightn't sound impressive, but given you could fit more than 20,000 of these squares on the head of a pin, a small amount of graphene at room temperature could feasibly power something small like a wrist watch indefinitely.

Better yet, it could power bioimplants that don't need cumbersome batteries.

As exciting as they are, these applications still need to be investigated. Fortunately Thibado is already working with scientists at the US Naval Research Laboratory to see if the concept has legs.

For an impossible molecule, graphene has become something of a wonder material that has turned physics on its head.

It's already being touted as a building block for future conductors. Perhaps we'll also be seeing it power the future of a new field of electronic devices as well. 

This research was published in Physical Review Letters

America’s Forever Wars




 What is happening strategically, is that the USA is slowly but surely making any form of warfare well nigh impossible without USA support and participation.  Recall that a mere helicopter loaded with a handful of troops can lay waste any serious concentration of manpower arrayed against them.  Thus already all enemy forces are compelled to rely on insurgency methods.

Add in the Strategic Space planetary bombardment fleet with its computer guided rapid discharge laser weapons, all of which is a mere figment of my imagination, and all forms of surface warfare is hopelessly obsolete.

This leads me into my next point.  I finally have a manning number for that the USSS or the newly named United States Space Service.  It is 37 813 which fits well with my expectations of about a dozen big birds packing a thousand personnel at least.  These are the observed triangular craft.  Many other designs are out there also and likely include large circular craft which appear to be common to space faring populations.

Obviously surface warfare will be suppressed in due time and certainly appears on the agenda... 
.
America’s Forever Wars 

Image An American Army helicopter flying over Helmand Province, Afghanistan, last month.


Oct. 22, 2017 

The United States has been at war continuously since the attacks of 9/11 and now has just over 240,000 active-duty and reserve troops in at least 172 countries and territories. While the number of men and women deployed overseas has shrunk considerably over the past 60 years, the military’s reach has not. American forces are actively engaged not only in the conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Yemen that have dominated the news, but also in Niger and Somalia, both recently the scene of deadly attacks, as well as Jordan, Thailand and elsewhere.


An additional 37,813 troops serve on presumably secret assignment in places listed simply as “unknown.” The Pentagon provided no further explanation.


There are traditional deployments in Japan (39,980 troops) and South Korea (23,591) to defend against North Korea and China, if needed, along with 36,034 troops in Germany, 8,286 in Britain and 1,364 in Turkey — all NATO allies. There are 6,524 troops in Bahrain and 3,055 in Qatar, where the United States has naval bases.


America’s operations in conflict zones like those in Africa are expanding: 400 American Special Forces personnel in Somalia train local troops fighting the Shabab Islamist group, providing intelligence and sometimes going into battle with them. One member of the Navy SEALs was killed there in a mission in May. On Oct. 14, a massive attack widely attributed to the Shabab on a Mogadishu street killed more than 270 people, which would show the group’s increased reach. About 800 troops are based in Niger, where four Green Berets died on Oct. 4.


Many of these forces are engaged in counterterrorism operations — against the Taliban in Afghanistan, for instance; against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria; against an affiliate of Al Qaeda in Yemen. So far, Americans seem to accept that these missions and the deployments they require will continue indefinitely. Still, it’s a very real question whether, in addition to endorsing these commitments, which have cost trillions of dollars and many lives over 16 years, they will embrace new entanglements of the sort President Trump has seemed to portend with his rash threats and questionable decisions on North Korea and Iran.


For that reason alone, it’s time to take stock of how broadly American forces are already committed to far-flung regions and to begin thinking hard about how much of that investment is necessary, how long it should continue and whether there is a strategy beyond just killing terrorists. Which Congress, lamentably, has not done. If the public is quiet, that is partly because so few families bear so much of this military burden, and partly because America is not involved in anything comparable to the Vietnam War, when huge American casualties produced sustained public protest. It is also because Congress has spent little time considering such issues in a comprehensive way or debating why all these deployments are needed.

Congress has repeatedly ducked efforts by Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia, and others to put the war against the Islamic State, which has broad popular support but no specific congressional authorization, on a firm legal footing. President Trump, like his predecessor, insists that legislation passed in 2001 to authorize the war against Al Qaeda is sufficient. It isn’t. After the Niger tragedy, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Bob Corker of Tennessee, has agreed to at least hold a hearing on the authorization issue. It is scheduled for Oct. 30.


Andrew Bacevich, a retired Army colonel who lost a son in Iraq and is a critic of military operations, says that “a collective indifference to war has become an emblem of contemporary America.” The idea that Americans could be inured to war and all its horrors is chilling, and it’s a recipe for dangerous decisions with far-reaching ramifications. There are many factors contributing to this trend:


During earlier wars, including Vietnam, the draft put most families at risk of having a loved one go to war, but now America has all-volunteer armed forces. Less than 1 percent of the population now serves in the military, compared with more than 12 percent in World War II. Most people simply do not have a family member in harm’s way.


American casualty rates have been relatively low, especially in more recent years after the bulk of American troops were withdrawn from Afghanistan and Iraq. Also, the United States has shifted to a strategy in which Americans provide air power and intelligence, and train and assist local troops who then do most of the fighting and most of the dying. This year, for instance, 11 American service members died in Afghanistan and 14 in Iraq. By comparison, 6,785 Afghan security force members died in 2016 and 2,531 died in the first five months this year, according to the United States and Afghan governments. Tens of thousands of civilians also perished at the hands of various combatants, including in 2017, but the figures get little publicity. Most Americans tend not to think about them.


Since 9/11, American leaders have defined the fight against terrorism as a permanent struggle against a permanent threat. Mr. Obama withdrew significant forces from Afghanistan and Iraq. But the rise of ISIS in Iraq and Syria and a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan led to renewed engagement, though at lower troop levels. Terror attacks here and in Europe, and Mr. Trump’s scaremongering, have reinforced the public’s sense of siege.


The military is essential to national security, but it is not the only thing keeping America safe. So do robust diplomacy and America’s engagement in multilateral institutions, both of which we have faulted Mr. Trump for ignoring or undercutting. The Pentagon, by contrast, thrives. After some belt-tightening during the financial crisis, it has a receptive audience in Congress and the White House as it pushes for more money to improve readiness and modernize weapons. Senators who balk at paying for health care and the basic diplomatic missions of the State Department approved a $700 billion defense budget for 2017-18, far more than Mr. Trump even requested.

Whether this largess will continue is unclear. But the larger question involves the American public and how many new military adventures, if any, it is prepared to tolerate.

Monday, December 11, 2017

UFO Activity in South Central Pennsylvania


This is a neat report as it makes clear through the observed motion that we are looking at a craft able to control its internal gravity. The apparent lights could well be landing lights.

More to the point, we now know that this technology has also been developed by the US Space Fleet since the mid fifties.  That at least explains the possible landing lights.

The powerful magnetic field is in evidence as well as it passes through the thick clouds and the force shoves the fog out of the way.

 For whatever reason they are not stealthing, or more likely we are dealing with ideal conditions.
. .


UFO Activity in South Central Pennsylvania   
http://www.phantomsandmonsters.com/2017/11/daily-2-cents-siberian-brown-bear.html#.WhxDEDjYeMg.facebook


Hanover, PA on 2017-11-25: Driving on Rt. 94 north leaving Hanover, Pa. It was dark and there were clouds in the sky, out of my passenger window (north) a bright white light in the clouds caught my attention. It came down through the clouds rapidly, and there was a hole in the clouds where it came through, like it pierced the clouds and left a hole. Then it seemed to maintain that altitude for a second or two, not long enough to say that it was hovering because it started to move southward after it came down. It kind of came down, paused a second and started moving south. There was a glowing trail where it came down through the clouds. The object appeared black and round, I could only see the shape against the clouds above it, so I don't know for sure if it was actually black or not but it was definitely round. It had 2x visible lights, steady lights no pulsing no blinking. The object started moving south from my passenger side across the driver's side of the car. It was no longer leaving a trail and the lights began blinking as it was passing over, which made me think maybe it was a plane. But then it suddenly shot back north, back to where it had come down through the clouds, and the 2x lights got much brighter when that happened. Then it changed direction again and started heading back south again, at that point the 2x lights went to 1x solid bright white light, there was no more blinking, then it just shot off southward crazy crazy fast, and I lost sight of it. It was completely gone in under a second. Much too fast to have been a plane or drone I think?


After it was out of sight I noticed the glowing trail where it came through the clouds was still there and still glowing. It did not leave any other trail at all, just where it came through the clouds. It is possible that moon light may have been shining through the spot where it came through the clouds? But it really didn't look like that, it looked more like a glow, which faded away after about 2-minutes. I didn't hear any noise, didn't see any other planes in the sky, just a strange object that shifted direction rapidly and then took off crazy fast. Gotta say the glow it left in the clouds was creepy, it was like a whitish golden glow. The clock in the car said 7:20pm but I think out of habit I looked at my watch, it is a digital battery powered watch (Casio) and it was completely dead, no display on it at all. I have no idea if that has anything to do with the object or not? But I found it odd that it died at that moment. I had checked my watch when I left my brother's house at 7pm and again when I crossed over Rt. 234, which was only a couple minutes before I saw the object, so the watch was definitely working, and now it's definitely dead. Nothing else appears to have been affected, just the watch. May not be related at all.


I'm pretty sure our current flight technologies can't replicate what I saw? The sighting was on Rt. 94 heading north past Rt. 234 before it meets up with I-15 north. My initial feeling upon seeing it was curiosity, trying to figure out what could pierce clouds like that. Then when I saw the blinking lights I thought it was just a plane, but then it totally changed direction and shot northward again, and the lights changed, my exact words were "what the Hell is that"? When the light got brighter and it shot off southward I was actually feeling a bit tense, not quite fear, just a bit tense. I had a 90-minute drive to get home and I spent the entire drive trying to come up with explanations, and I can't think of anything at all to explain what I saw. So I classified it as unidentified. When I got home I looked up your web site and filed this report. I hope this helps. I hope I've provided you with enough details. - MUFON


NOTE: This apparently occurred near me...in the direction of Hampton, PA. I have been told by a few local witnesses that there have been a series of UFO sightings around York / Adams County Pa. in the past few weeks, though this is the first actual report I've seen. Lon

Is This the End of the NFL?





Yes, it probably is.  We do have sports able to show case athleticism without any risk of brain damage.  Other sports can be easily upgraded to prevent those injuries.  Even Martial arts need only eliminate any form of head shot by making it an immediate match loser. 

Football is the sport with the most difficult problem simply because we will surely need to end tackling since it is impossible to control the outcome on a falling body.  That changes the whole game.  The truth is that we really needed to rethink tackling anyway.    Way too many careers ended by joint injuries.

We can accept a rare level of injury as inevitable but we cannot accept continuous multiple injuries as a matter of course.  The problem was obvious going back to the punch drunk ex boxer of the late nineteenth century.  Head protection was also never good enough and likely never will be.

That soccer takes this market everywhere else should tell us that it is replaceable.

Is This the End of the NFL?

By Will Leitch


http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/11/leitch-is-this-the-end-of-the-nfl.html


A few weekends ago, at a seersucker-in-November southern horse-racing event I attended with some lovely and friendly people who will nevertheless be the first ones taken out when the revolution comes, a family friend, an older white man, asked me what I, the one sportswriter he knew, thought of the kneeling NFL players. I told him that while I stand for the anthem myself, I supported the players’ right to express themselves politically and encouraged him to worry less about the kneeling and more about what the players were trying to say. He snorted and said he was done with the NFL until “they stand their ass up.” We then drank some bourbon and found something else to talk about.

Later on, I spoke with another family friend, one with long hair and a big bushy beard and an anarchic spirit (he whispered “Fuck all these Trump people” to me with a winking smile). I had just returned from the World Series and told him in February I’d be heading to the Super Bowl. “I don’t know how you can watch that,” he said. “Just jingoistic military bullshit.” He asked me if I would let my sons play, or if I worried it would “smash their brains.” We then drank some more bourbon and found something else to talk about.


There was a time, not long ago, when the NFL was the most unifying public institution we had. No matter your political or demographic persuasion, the one thing you could find to talk about with someone was football. Richard Nixon and Hunter S. Thompson bonded over football, for crying out loud. Over the decades, the Super Bowl grew into the ultimate American spectacle, the last event that everyone in the country watched together, whether you cared about the game, the commercials, the point spread, or just Left Shark. You couldn’t avoid the NFL if you wanted to. Most didn’t.


Now, suddenly, the league that was once for everyone seems to be in crisis. Worse, it has no natural constituency. Liberals think it’s dangerous, classist, totalitarian, and cruel. Conservatives think it’s pandering, too “politically correct.” A lot of this is attributable, like so much else, to the president. Dozens of players were protesting the first two weeks of the season, but no one seemed to care … until Trump’s weekend tweetstorm from his golf club back in September. But the fact that we’re even framing this in political terms — the idea that a game in which people throw a ball and tackle each other has somehow become another thing for us all to yell at each other about from our ideological corners — is a large part of the problem. You can no longer watch the NFL without thinking of everything swirling around it off the field. The bigger problem for the league is: So many people just aren’t watching at all.


Television ratings have been down for the past several years, with this year’s down 5.7 percent. Why? Part of it is just the shrinking of all TV audiences — broadcasters once thought that live sports were one thing people would continue to tune in for in an age of streaming and cord cutting, but that doesn’t mean sports are immune.


The larger problem is that the NFL, like many empires before it, got too large, too cocky, and too ambitious, and it overreached. One of the main reasons NFL ratings have always been so high is a simple one: NFL teams play only 16 regular-season games a year, traditionally on one designated day a week. This has turned games into must-see events, appointment programming: It makes each game feel special. And for a 16-game season to compete with an 82-game season or a 162-game season, it has to feel special: For the NFL to outearn its rival sports, each game has to bring in many times more TV revenue. Which is one reason why, with television networks so desperate for a ratings goose, the NFL added a Thursday-night game (much against players’ wishes), hoping it would become another must-see marquee event (and allowing beleaguered networks CBS and NBC to fill a night on their schedule). This is increasingly turning out to be a disastrous decision. The games do not have cachet. And because Thursday-night teams are always playing on short rest, their play is choppy and disorganized, the players exhausted. This makes the games ugly to watch, a terrible advertisement for the product. And, perhaps worst of all, it oversaturates the market. The more days you add to the schedule, the less special the games seem. Which means fewer people watch them.

Quality of play is not just a connoisseur’s complaint. The NFL has always been slow to react to issues of player safety, but in recent years, it has instituted a series of cosmetic changes meant to address growing discontent. These changes have arguably failed on both fronts: They’ve made the game less fun to watch, and they’re probably not keeping anyone safer. There is now a “concussion protocol,” in which a player thought to have a concussion is kept out of the game until he can pass a series of tests, which sounds positive until you remember that most doctors say the real danger of CTE for players comes not from the traumatic events but “subconcussive” hits — damage that becomes much worse over time than what the “big hits” cause. This is also the case with “targeting,” a penalty that has evolved over the years and now punishes helmet-to-helmet hits and leads to ejections. But, again, the real danger still comes from the fundamental pounding that football players sustain over years of play. So these targeting penalties probably don’t make any difference, and they’ve taken out some of the violence that many fans respond viscerally to. The NFL, once again, can’t win for losing. People are mad at it for the toll the game takes on the players’ brains, but people are also mad at it because the ways it has tried to address the issue have made the games less kinetic and compelling.


Compounding the problem — and the frustrations of NFL owners — has been the ascendancy of the NBA. Whereas the NFL felt like the sport that best fit the cultural spirit of the past decades of American life, it’s the NBA that reflects the future. All at once, the NBA has one of its greatest-ever teams (the Golden State Warriors), led by an inner-sanctum future Hall of Famer (Kevin Durant) and the league’s most beloved player (Stephen Curry); it has perhaps the best player since Michael Jordan (LeBron James), who also happens to be one of the most vital, globalist brand-called-me icons of our time; and it has a freewheeling, deeply pleasant style of play that is both an evolution of decades of on-court style and irresistible to watch. Perhaps more important, it has actively embraced the personalities, and the power, of its players, from the goofy man-child Twitter giddiness of 76ers star Joel Embiid to the Euro-charm of the Knicks’ own Kristaps Porzingis to an unprecedented spate of political activism culminating in the still-surreal spectacle of LeBron calling President Trump “U bum” on Twitter (which actually shut Trump up; he hasn’t talked about the NBA since). The NBA is vibrant and organic and alive; the NFL feels both toxic and bathed in amber. The league won’t even let the players take their helmets off to celebrate; how much could we possibly be expected to care about these people?


A few weeks ago, sportscaster Bob Costas told a group of students at the University of Maryland that “the reality is that this game destroys people’s brains” and that “the whole thing could collapse like a house of cards if people actually begin connecting the dots.” Costas is a smart man, and more than that, he is a survivor: One of the skills of his career has been understanding which way the winds are blowing and adjusting accordingly. For the past several years, he was the host of the pregame show for the most-watched NFL game every week, Football Night in America. He left the show this year and has been speaking out against the NFL ever since. For the past few years, it was reasonable to wonder whether defending the NFL was going to put you on the wrong side of history. It is becoming increasingly clear that that history is nigh.


*This article appears in the November 27, 2017, issue of New York Magazine.

The Most Natural Organic Pool You Can Build Yourself


  
This certainly is valid and the obvious problems have already been solved in Europe.  This is something an experienced pool contractor needs to pick up on.  The customers are out there.

The present approach has always been unsatisfactory.  This eliminates the whole chlorine cycle in particular.

Warming may even be something that can be maintained.  I do know that a natural pond will readily warm up under the sun as well.
.

The Most Natural Organic Pool You Can Build Yourself

https://wakeup-world.com/2014/08/08/the-most-natural-organic-pool-you-can-build-yourself/?

Guest Writer for Wake Up World
There are many reasons to avoid chlorinated pools, most of all due to your health and the environment. Natural pools allow nature to provide hygienic water for swimming, and the vibrant ecology of plants and animals conditions the water so there is no need for any chemical disinfectants. These pools are healthy for people and wildlife. In fact the water quality in a natural pool is so good, many are well within drinking water standards.
Scientists have known for decades that along with the good that comes with disinfecting water with chlorine, chemicals called disinfection byproducts can also be formed when chlorine reacts with organic substances like human skin and residues from body care products.


Why is absorbing chlorine through the skin thought to be so dangerous? When you swallow water, you can count on the liver to filter out many toxins – but when something gets absorbed through your skin, it goes straight into the circulatory system.
Studies have shown that drinking, bathing or swimming in chlorinated water may  increase the risk of bladder cancer. Chemicals, most commonly chlorine, used to disinfect water can produce by-products that have been tied to increased cancer risk.

Organic Pools
The nutrient level in an organic pool is carefully restricted so competition for the limiting nutrient (usually phosphorous) is fierce. In these circumstances, pond plants outperform algae, keeping it supressed and barely hanging in at the margins. A pond, low in nutrients, is a healthy environment for wildlife. An organic pool is teeming with life. If an alien micro-organism, a human pathogen for instance, enters the water, it faces battalions of hungry pond dewelling micro-organisms to either starve it out of existence, or devour it. A water analysis of this pond water showed that it contained zero organisms of e coli. per litre of water.
Swimming in a Natural pool among flowering plants of lilies, iris and marsh marigolds is a celebration of life. Soothing your limbs and mind and skin and eyes, it seems every cell in your body is telling you – this is the way swimming should be. Natural Pools work entirely with nature to provide hygienic water for swimming.
Natural pools use a fraction of the electrical energy used to maintain conventional pools. All of this is achieved without compromising healthy water. These pools have been designed to benefit wildlife – they are a nature reserve you can swim in!
The plunge pool is a proper organic pool (natural swimming pool), only smaller. And this one is small enough to fit in a modest garden to bring the delights of plunging into organic water to more of us.
Kids love this pool. They feel comfortable learning to swim in deep water knowing they can reach the shallows with a single kick of doggy paddle and an outstretched arm. It somehow manages to achieve being simultaneously cottage garden cozy and yet a sparkling wilderness.
Will the pool be full of mosquitoes?
No. The water hosts a diverse ecology, which includes fauna that predates on mosquitoes. Mosquito larvae have nowhere to hide. Dragonfly larvae, Water Boatmen, Diving Beetle larvae eat the submerged mosquito larvae, while Pond Skaters and Whirligig beetles scoot over the water surface to devour emerging mosquito larvae from above. (Interestingly, a study of a bio-diverse, naturally occurring pond on a Caribbean island showed it contained no mosquito larvae.) Also, mosquito larvae prefer still water. Water in a Natural Pool is gently circulated.
What about human pathogens in the water?
The water holds a diverse ecosystem teeming with freshwater microorganisms constantly filtering the water for other microorganisms, including human pathogens, which have the misfortune to plop into the pool. Over the last 20 years, many thousands of these pools have been constructed in Germany, Austria, France, Switzerland, UK, Australia, USA. There have been no reported health issues with these pools.
What about the pool freezing in the winter?
There is usually no problem with the pool freezing over. The pool design is fairly immune to freezing. There is no shallow pipework or wall to be vulnerable to ice. The local aquatic flora and fauna will be adapted to cope with the conditions.
What about  leaves falling?
The pool can cope with some leaves in the pool, but if excessive they will rot down and add too many nutrients to the pool. A net can be strung over the pool in the autumn to catch the leaves.

SE Native Holocaust Late 1600's




 A long time ago i came to the conclusion that the population collapse along the Eastern Seaboard had mostly to do with the depredations of the slave trade and not the problems associated with European disease.  What i lacked were useful cultural reports.  We are now getting just that in this work.

After all, the population along the Atlantic coast to the mountains were  largely the result of three thousand years of interaction with European DNA actually dominating.  Who would have thought?


Do also recall that the Siberian type is a small subset of  Asian peoples who made it to the Northern seas in particular.  The Ainu look more Eurasian than pure Asian.  
.

A SOUTHEASTERN NATIVE AMERICAN HOLOCAUST DURING THE LATE 1600S




https://peopleofonefire.com/a-southeastern-native-american-holocaust-during-the-late-1600s.html

  The Lower Cherokees . . . Who were they really? – Part Three


Extreme Northeast Georgia was occupied by Uchees in the 1700s, not ethnic Cherokees! The Rickohockens, Muskogee Creeks and Cherokees played a major role in an ethnic cleansing of indigenous peoples in Georgia and South Carolina. The eight “Lower Cherokee” villages in extreme northwestern South Carolina and the Elate Creeks in Northeast Georgia were originally Itsate Creek refugees from Muskogee depredations farther south. Hence they sought an alliance with another powerful alliance in Northeastern Tennessee to gain protection from the Muskogees.



The report that archaeologists Arthur Kelly, Lewis Larson and Joseph Caldwell wrote about their excavation of Etowah Mounds contains a fascinating story near the end. Throughout 1954, 1955 and 1956 the three men argued about whether Etowah Mounds was built by “the Creeks” or “the Cherokees.” Of course, we now know that both tribes are the entities that appeared in the early 1700s, but academicians back then didn’t understand that fact. Actually, they knew so little about the actual cultural history of the Creeks back then that they didn’t even know that Etowah was derived from the Muskogee-Creek word, Etalwa.


Kelly always thought the Creeks built Etowah Mounds. Caldwell always thought that the Cherokees built Etowah. Larson, who had the largest role in the excavations there, initially sided with Caldwell, but as the excavations continued, he shifted to leaning slightly toward Kelly’s view.


The Etowah Report ends with the archaeologists agreeing that the forthcoming excavations on the Tugaloo and Keowee Rivers in advance of the filling of Lake Hartwell would determine whether Etowah was Creek or Cherokee. In 1957, Caldwell started work on Tugaloo Island . . . one of the Lower Cherokee towns, according to all current references. Caldwell would find that his understanding of the Appalachian Mountains’ Native American history was entirely wrong. Meanwhile, no anthropologist bothered to look at Colonial Period maps. They showed the region around Tugaloo Island was never occupied by ethnic Cherokees. It could well be that Cherokees had nothing to do with the sacking of Tugaloo Island around 1700 AD, because the survivors soon allied themselves with the Cherokees. You will be surprised, who the “bad guys” were.




Lewis Larson took this photo on the day, he discovered the Etowah statues at the base of Mound C. Several of the Etowah museum’s exhibits from its 1990’s “renovation” are fraudulent. The original town, from c. 1000 AD to 1250 AD actually ran north-south across the channel, where the Etowah River now flows.


The reason that Georgia’s archaeologists now tell folks that “the Etowah Report” has disappeared is that it grossly conflicts with several of the key exhibits at the Etowah Museum, which a later generation of archaeologists planned. You see, the famous Etowah Marble Statues were found at the very bottom of Mound C in a round temple next to a rectangular temple with stone walls. The statues were NOT hastily buried in a pit at the top of Mound C. By the mid-1920s, Mound C had been excavated all the way down to its surrounding grade. This is one of the many fairy tales created by late 20th century academicians.

Joseph Caldwell at Tugaloo Island

Tugaloo Island was located in the Tugaloo River, east of Toccoa in Northeast Georgia. Today, it is mostly covered by the waters of Lake Hartwell. Because the archaeological work and the destructive effect of the water, its eight mounds are no longer visible. A nearby Georgia State Historical Marker brags to visitors that Tugaloo Island was the location of the oldest Cherokee town in Georgia and that the mounds were built by the Cherokees there around 1450 AD.

ACTUALLY, what Caldwell discovered was that there had been a small village on the island and on the Georgia shore of the river since around 1000 BC. It became a substantial village during the Middle Woodland Period, occupied by people, who made Swift Creek pottery. It was then occupied by “mound builders” around 800 AD and thrived until around 1700 AD or a little later . . . when it was burned and sacked. A few years later, a small hamlet, composed of simple round huts was built in one corner of the plaza at Tugaloo. The mounds were never utilized again.


During the long period of its primary occupation, the town on Tugaloo Island produced very similar artifacts to those found around Macon, GA. Caldwell had to admit that he was wrong. Both Tugaloo and Etowah were built by ancestors of the Creek Indians. We may never know why the generation of archaeologists after Caldwell ignored his project and wrote the false description of Tugaloo that one now sees on the historic marker and references.

Look at official maps from the early 1700s to the American Revolution. They all label what is now Stevens, Rabun and Hart Counties, Georgia as being Hogelogi . . . Uchee. They label the land between the Keowee and Tugaloo Rivers in South Carolina as being Uchee. Hogelogi is actually one of the ways that Algonquin speakers, such as the Shawnee, tried to pronounce the Muskogee-Creek word, Tokah-le-ki.

On several of these official maps there is an intriguing note. It states that after Cherokees killed the Creek delegates to a meeting at the Hogeloge town of Tugaloo (actually both words are derived from Tokah-le) war broke out between the Creeks and Cherokees. The Uchee at Tugaloo fled the island in 1716 and settled here (southern Stevens County.)

In 1736, the Rev. Charles Wesley, Indian Agent in the Province of Georgia, journeyed up the Savannah River to visit Tugaloo. He described it as “a miserable village of no more than 100 Uchee inhabitants.” It was on the Georgia side of the Tugaloo River near the island. In other words, the island was not significantly inhabited after December 1715. Apparently, frequent floods and the nuisance of having to cross the river to reach the island, made it an undesirable place to locate a village.

Arthur Kelly at Chauga, Cusseta and Tamasee

Joseph Caldwell also supervised a survey of the entire proposed Lake Hartwell Basin. Unfortunately, he went to the Elbert Mounds instead of the Rembert Mounds in Elbert County, GA. As a result an incredibly important archaeological site was covered by water before it could be studied by professional archeologists.

Caldwell did identify several village sites in the general vicinity of Tugaloo in South Carolina and southern Stevens County, GA, which contained mounds. Arthur Kelly excavated these sites. Cusseta at the time, was assumed to be a Lower Cherokee town, as were Chauga and Tamassee. However, we now know that Cusseta was the northernmost Upper Creek town in Northeast Georgia. Probably, most of its residents were actually mixed-blood Uchee-Creek-European ancestry.

Kelly found the same exact patterns at Chauga, Cussetta and Tamasee. Towns with the same cultural characteristics as the Creeks living around Macon, GA lived in these communities until around 1700 AD. A thick layer of ash covered the Muskogean town, which was followed by a smaller village with cultural characteristics, which archeologists at the time assumed to be “Cherokee.”

This is what Kelly wrote in the opening page of his 1961 report on these excavations:

“The analysis of artifacts and ceramic materials from good archeological contexts supports the conclusions arrived at tentatively from the study of the successive mound constructions. The final summary of all the evidence leads logically to a conclusion concerning Cherokee proto-history and prehistory somewhat opposed to theories hitherto regarded by many investigators which tended to bring the Cherokees into the region from a remote point of origin. Purely ethnological studies of Cherokee tribal culture have emphasized traits and complexes which derive from a more northern hearth. The archeological evidence at Chauga, and elsewhere in north and northeast Georgia, as it becomes available from historic landmark sites, are not congruent with the theories of Cherokee origins . . . which assume them to be long time residents of the region.”

Translation into comprehensible English: The “mound builder” towns were occupied by the same culture, who occupied the Proto-Creek towns around Macon, GA. However, the Lower Cherokees, who replaced them, were NOT from a long distance off like early Cherokee villages in Tennessee and North Carolina, but rather emigrants from a locale fairly close to these villages.

There were three mounds in Chauga, not one as stated in the Wikipedia article about Chauga. That is one of the areas, where the anthropology professor, who wrote the Wikipedia article, strayed from the facts. Keep in mind that Kelly’s report was published by the University of Georgia and is still available online. There is absolutely no excuse for a 21stcentury anthropology professor to write fiction in Wikipedia. Here is the link to the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauga_Mound

Chauga is the Cherokee pronunciation of chauka, the Creek word for the Black Locust tree.

Arthur Kelly at Sandtown

In 1968, Arthur Kelly led a team of students and professors from Georgia State University in the excavation of the Creek town of Sandtown, on the Chattahoochee River a mile downstream from Six Flags Over Georgia. A cluster of important archaeological sites were about to be destroyed to build the Great Southwest Industrial Park, being developed by a Texas corporation.

Kelly, as is the case of contemporary archeologists, was not aware that this locale was rich with evidence of Arawak occupation. Very close by is the Owl Rock and the location, where the Sweetwater Creek stela was found. In other words, it was in a region that was not always “Muskogean” like the Tugaloo River.

The archaeological team was surprised to discover that the Sandtown site had been burned and sacked twice . . . once during Pre-Columbian times and then again in the period around 1690 to 1710. The people, who lived in the town prior to the second burning, produced artifacts similar to those found at Early Lamar Cultural Period sites . . . like those in Macon. The final occupation was similar to Historic Period Creeks. In other words, one branch of the Creeks, probably Apalache or Itsate, had been replaced by Muskogee Creeks . . . not crude round huts, like was seen in extreme Northeast Georgia and extreme Northwest South Carolina.





When the De Soto Expedition entered what is now Georgia in March 1540, the conquistadors were astonished to see the Natives wearing brightly colored and ornately patterned clothing. The Florida Apalachee (not their real name) had worn clothing made of Spanish Moss.

When Richard Briggstock visited North Georgia in 1653, he was astonished to see the Apalache elite wearing brightly colored and ornately patterned clothing. The commoners normally wore off-white colored clothing unless given colored clothing by the elite as part of a religious ceremony.

By the 1720s, the Creeks had evidently forgotten how to even weave cloth. In his opening statement to Governor Oglethorpe in June 1735, High King Chiliki stated, “We were naked and you gave us cloth to wear.”

What the Colonial Archives tell us

There is a consistency to European maps between around 1550 and 1701. All Native American town names in present day Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina and western North Carolina are Muskogean, Panoan (eastern Peruvian), Itza Maya or Arawak words. The town of Sara also appears in the Blue Ridge Foothills region of South Carolina. It is not clear what language Sara is derived from.

From 1570 to 1700 the Kingdom of Apalache dominated these maps and gave its name to the Appalachian Mountains. The plural of Apalache is Apalachen, but the word originally only applied to the North Georgia Mountains. Some maps even labeled the Nacoochee Valley, “Domus regae” . . . House of the King in Latin.

Suddenly, in 1701, Guillaume De L’Isle’s map of North America still lists the Apalache, but only as one of the tribes in the Lower Southeast. Many of the other major divisions of the future Creek Confederacy appeared on this map, including Coweta, Cusseta, Tuskegee, Chattahoochee and Apalachicola. Western North Carolina was labeled “Pays du Chouenons” (Land of the Shawnee) but the map also showed Creek towns on the Little Tennessee River within that region. There is no mention of the Cherokees. At that time, all eight of the future “Lower Cherokee” villages in South Carolina had Creek names.



The first map to mention the Cherokees was drawn in 1715 by John and Richard Beresford. It shows most of the Cherokee villages to be located in northeastern Tennessee, where formerly there had been Panoan, Shawnee and Muskogean villages. It also shows the eight “Lower Cherokee” villages in northwestern South Carolina. By this time, all of the major Creek towns of the 1700s and early 1800s were in existence. The 1721 map of South Carolina by Colonel John Barnwell, showed these Creek towns, plus all the major Cherokee villages, whose names would continue to the end of the 18th century.

Two very important details appeared on 1715 Beresford Map that are not mentioned in the history books. The French already had constructed at fort at the confluence of the Coosa and Tallapoosa Rivers in Alabama, plus a much larger and older fort on Bussell Island in Tennessee, where the Tennessee and Little Tennessee Rivers meet. All current references state that Fort Toulouse was not built in Alabama until 1717 or later. There is no mention of the Tennessee River fort anywhere, except on the People of One Fire.

There was obviously a radical change in the cultural landscape of the Lower Southeast at the end of the 17th century. What was it? . . . or was there a combination of horrific events that wiped out much of the indigenous population of the region? Several wars radically changed the ethnic landscape of Southeastern North America, but it seems that a single epidemic wiped out most of its population.




Beaver Wars (1628-1711) – Between 1628 and 1702, the Iroquois Confederacy conquered most of the Upper Southeast. Their attacks on western Virginia (VA and WV) plus Kentucky and northwestern North Carolina occurred between 1672 and 1711. Surviving indigenous tribes either became vassals of the Iroquois or fled southward. Note that the region where the ancestors of the Cherokees previously lived was captured in 1700. So there was obviously vicious warfare going on in this region in the 1790s.

Rickohocken Slave Raiders (1646-1684) – Between 1646 and 1661, the Rickohockens captured Native American slaves for Governor William Berkeley. Beginning in 1660, the Rickohockens had a contract with the Province of Virginia to capture as many Native American slaves as possible. In 1660, they established a base in present day Augusta, GA to facilitate slave raids in the Lower Southeast.

Known as the Westo to Carolinians, they also had a contract to do the same for South Carolina planters until 1680. The Rickohockens were last mentioned in the archives of the Virginia House of Burgesses in 1684. Their territory in southwestern Virginia was captured by the Iroquois Confederacy in 1700.

Cherokee Slave Raiders (1684?-1752) – Although not known as Charakeys until around 1715, proto-Cherokee and Cherokee villages were the biggest players in the Native American slave trade. The provinces of Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina issued distinct branding irons to the 14 bands that made up this alliance. Cherokee slave raiders ranged from the Great Lakes to southern Florida . . . from the Mississippi River to the Carolina Piedmont.

For unknown reasons, ethnologist James Mooney believed the tall tales of The Swimmer in the late 1880s and labeled the Uchee as the big time slavers and the Cherokees as their victims. Mooney equated the Rickohockens and the Westo to the Uchees. In fact, it was the Uchees, who were primary targets of Cherokee slave raids, since their villages were scattered about the Southeast.

Both the Rickohockens and the Cherokees depopulated a region that was targeted for slave raids and then designated their hunting territory. The village was burned. All adult males, not killed in battle, were tortured to death. Older women and the elderly were either killed or left to starve. Children too young to walk several hundred miles to coastal slave markets were killed or adopted. Older children and teenagers were the prime targets for slave acquisition.

There was one difference among the Cherokee slave raiders. Villages located near the periphery of Cherokee territory were sometimes given the option of joining their alliance. That would protect them from slave raids.

Apalachicola and Muskogee-speaking Slave Raiders (1680?-1717) – Apalachicola and Muskogee slave raiders paddled up and down the Chattahoochee River and along the Gulf Coast to obtain Native American slaves to sell to both the French and British planters. They were far more skilled canoe-builders and mariners than the Cherokees. They are probably who burned Sandtown the second time, but also wiped out what was left of the Gulf Coast tribes of Florida. In 1704, the Apalachicola composed most of a force led by South Carolina militia, which pretty much destroyed the Spanish mission system among the Florida Apalachee (who didn’t call themselves Apalachee).

In a treaty between an alliance of Muskogee-speaking towns and the Colony of Carolina . . . signed at Ocmulgee Mounds in 1705 . . . the Muskogee Creeks bragged that they had played a major role in the development of the colony by repeatedly attacking and destroying the many tribes, living near Carolina plantations, who blocked expansion of the colony.

My family, like many others in eastern Georgia and South Carolina remembered bitterly the attacks by Muskogee Creeks during the 1600s. What we remembered was a three way war between the Muskogees, Upper Creeks and Itsate Creeks. I did not realize that the Muskogees were also Creek Indians until I was in my middle-20s. The Muskogees invaded Itsate territory deep into what is now South Carolina. They were fought to a standstill in a horrific battle, which killed most of the warriors on both sides. After then, a peace treaty was signed at Ocmulgee, which became the forerunner of the Creek Confederacy. However, Upper Creeks attacked the pro-Patriot Creeks and Uchees in Northeast Georgia throughout the American Revolution and on until around 1794.

As a result, Creeks in Northeast Georgia and South Carolina ceased being associated with the Creek Confederacy three decades before the Trail of Tears Period. Most did not go west. They either assimilated with their Anglo-American neighbors or moved to Southwest Georgia and northern Florida.

King William’s War or Nine Years War (1688-1697) – This war was fought between Great Britain and many other European countries against France. Both the European colony of Melilot and the Native capital of Apalache in Northeast Georgia disappeared from maps after 1694, suggesting that both towns were possibly sacked by Native armies, allied with France.

Great Southeastern Smallpox Epidemic of 1696-1700 – This was the first documented regional epidemic in the Southeast. Although text books traditionally tell students that the pathogens, left behind by the De Soto Expedition, wiped out the advanced indigenous peoples in the Southeast, eyewitness accounts suggest otherwise. Southern Alabama seems to have been depopulated by pigs who escaped the De Soto Expedition at Mabila in 1541. However, the coastal areas of the Southeast were depopulated as early 1500 by a smallpox plague that was carried by Native traders from the Yucatan.

On the other hand, the Apalache Kingdom in Northeast Georgia was thriving in 1653, when visited by Richard Briggstock. The High King of Apalache boasted that he could count on over 7,000 warriors within a two days walk from his capital and so had no need to fear the English or the Spanish.

The plague started in Virginia in 1696 and had spread as far south as Charleston by 1697. The director of the anthropology department at the University of Mississippi, Robbie Etheridge, studied the paths taken by this plague. She was the editor of a fascinating book, Mapping the Mississippian Shatter Zone . . . The Colonial Indian Slave Trade and Regional Instability in the American South. The depopulation of the Lower Southeast from smallpox in the 1690s directly followed the routes taken by Native American slave raiders to coastal slave markets. By 1717, when Guillaume de L’Isle had updated his map of North America, many, many towns and even, ethnic groups, had completely disappeared from the landscape. What appeared in their place were the fortified towns of the Creek Confederacy and the many villages of the Cherokee Alliance.

Creek words all over the place, where the Cherokees have lived for 10,000 years?

Both Cherokee and wannabe Cherokee scholars seem totally oblivious to is the fact that all of the Lower Cherokee villages had Itsate Creek names, which can also be found at lower elevations in traditional “Creek” areas of Georgia and South Carolina. The 1200+ Lower Cherokees were not ethnic Cherokees at all. They were Creek refugees, who were the remnants of large towns to the south. They fled to the mountains to avoid the slave raids of the Rickohockens and the depredations of the Muskogee-speaking towns on the Chattahoochee River. 


Some ethnic Cherokees moved into the Georgia Mountains after the American Revolution, but there are very few ethnic Cherokee place name in Georgia. Yonah Mountain and Walasi-yi Gap did not switch from their original Creek names to Cherokee words until over a decade after the Cherokees had been forcibly removed to the Indian Territory.


Over time, Lower Cherokee chiefs intermarried with Middle Cherokee and Overhill Cherokee families to cement political relationships. However, you see no Cherokee personal names among the Lower Cherokees. Some Lower Cherokees probably learned one of the more important Cherokee dialects in order to take part in tribal conferences, but one never sees ethnic Cherokee village names in Lower Cherokee territory until the 1790s . . . only Itsate Creek and Uchee words.


So who were the Lower Cherokees, Elate and Northeast Georgia Apalache-Creeks? They were Itsate Creeks, Apalache Creeks, Chickasaws and Uchees, who survived the holocaust,created by the British-sponsored Native American Slave Trade and a horrific small pox plague.


The Lower Cherokees were Itsate Creek and Uchee refugees in eight small villages at the headwaters of the Savannah River, who decided to form an alliance with militarily powerful villages in Northeastern Tennessee, in order to provide some protection from slave raids. These refugees settled on the sites of burned towns, after they were sacked by some other tribe.


The Elate (Foothill People) were Itsate Creek, Uchee and refugee villages from the Georgia Coast, which formed an alliance of 12 villages in order to protect themselves from the Native American slave raids. Many of these people were partially descended from Sephardic Jewish gold miners or other Europeans, who settled in the region during the 1600s. They were neutrals, but found their territory being given to the Cherokee Alliance in the 1785 Treaty of Augusta. They had absolutely no political influence in the Cherokee Tribal Government that formed in 1817. As a result, many eventually moved to the Creek sections of Alabama or assimilated with their white neighbors.


The Northeast Georgia Creeks were a combination of indigenous Itsate Creeks, South Carolina Creek and mixed-blood Indian refugees and Savannah River Uchees. From 1717 until 1786, they were members of the Creek Confederacy. However, when a Tory, Alexander McGillivray, moved the Creek Capital to Pensacola, FL, ceded the Yamacutah Sacred Shrine and then launched attacks on the Pro-Patriot Uchees and Creeks in Northeast Georgia, they ceased to be associated with the Creek Confederacy.

There was an error in this gadget