Raving Conservative


Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Evidence that Dinosaurs and Man Coexisted, or of Something Else?

I recently read a fascinating book called “Secrets of the Ica Stones and Nazca Lines” by Dr. Dennis Swift. What it presents is very compelling, though I am not yet totally sure what to make of it.

First the criticism that must come. It is obviously a self-published book as no publishing company would allow errors like “astronauts” being misspelled “astronaughts” every time astronauts are mentioned, which is at least 20 times. There are other misspellings and words that have been mashed together due to a missing space. Given that, feel free to make what you will of the book. My pet theory is that no major publishing would tough it because of the nature of the material inside. What it contains would be considered by many to absolute quackery.

This book discusses something known as the Ica Stones, and it does so critically, but favorably. For those of you who are going to instantly declare the following information as being nothing more than a desperate move by a Christian apologist I have the following to reveal: the author of this book was an Atheist and Evolutionist until his thorough professional study of the Ica Stones convinced him that religion must be right.

The author, as I mentioned, is a credentialed archaeologist. He has dedicated years to studying the Ica Stones and working to either prove or disprove them. Here is the conclusion based upon proper scientific study: Some are real, some are obvious fakes.

Among all the conspiracy theory style information about government cover ups and museums keeping stones and pottery with dinosaurs, men on hang gliders, and performing advanced surgery in boxes in the storage room is some far more interesting and substantive information.

First, there is a criticism that no carved stones have ever been found by actual archaeological expeditions. The author demonstrates this to be utterly false with his accounting of post dig literature from other archaeologists who have found such stones on their digs, as well an eyewitness account of carved stones being removed form an ancient grave. He gives the date and publication of these properly conducted digs in his book. So the argument that all carved stones must be fake because only the Juaceros find them is proven to be false.

Second is the criticism that the controversy of the stones is because of depictions of extinct fish, but that the depictions are so stylized that it takes a stretch of the imagination to conclude that man actually interacted with said fish. This is simply preposterous. The controversy is because of the depictions of dinosaurs that have been shown to be totally accurate even to the most recent discoveries about such things as how the tail is held, the back plate and tail spike placement of Stegosaurus, and other depictions that are true on every stone whose age has been verified as ancient, meaning at least 300 years, before the discovery of dinosaurs. There are pictures of men riding and hunting dinosaurs. There are also depictions of heart surgery, cesarean sections, organ transplants, and brain surgery. To date the methods that have been criticized as impossible are being shown to work, such as the use of acupuncture needles to deaden the pain of a c-section operation. Therefore, any claim that the stones are meaningless because it is just stylized fish is demonstrably ridiculous.

It turns out that there is also ancient pottery of verified age, 500-1200 years old, that depicts these same images, and some of it is on display in museums, but with the controversial images turned toward the walls.

Full color photographs of these stones and pottery are in the book.

The Museum of Dr. Javier Cabrera contains the vast majority of the Ica Stones that are available for public viewing. Before his death he allowed the stones to be tested at random to prove or disprove their age as being too old for the modern counterfeiters. His stones were tested on their own, as well compared to known counterfeits made by known counterfeiters. The results were that Dr. Cabrera’s stones bore no resemblance to any counterfeits and that they are at least old enough to have developed a natural patina, and yes, the patinas were proven to be from natural aging and not the result of such techniques as leaving the stones in a chicken coop for a month or rubbing mud and dung into them then baking them. The compositions of each these counterfeiting methods and the actual patinas on Dr. Cabrera’s stones were completely dissimilar. Another important note: there are no known counterfeits larger than a football, but Dr. Cabrera’s collection contains stones so large they must be lifted with a crane.

In a totally different part of the world, at the Temple of Ta Prohm, there is a gigantic carved boulder that hasa stegosaurus on it. This carving has baffled scientists for years, and the only two explanations offered are that either the artist actually saw a stegosaurus, or he has somehow able to reconstruct an accurate picture of one from a jumbled skeleton typical of what is found on Paleontological digs. They also claim that primitive man did not have the technical expertise to perform such reconstructions that are still being revised today.

Based off this information I have come to the conclusion that there are 2 possible explanations. The first is that we need to get over our self indulgent pride and acknowledge that man has had the ability to figure out the same stuff we are figuring out now for thousands of years. If people were performing advanced surgery in South America 1,000 years ago then I think it can safely be said that they may have had the curiosity and expertise to reconstruct a dinosaur skeleton that they excavated. This is sure to be a shot to the pride of modern scientists, which would explain why they would rather deny the stones and pottery even exist than seek to explain them. The second is that these images were entirely based on real life images and experience. If this is true then man and dinosaurs actually did coexist at some point, which is another good reason for scientists to pretend the stones and pottery don’t exist rather than trying to explain them. Personally, I am open to either explanation and am hesitant to draw any definite conclusions based solely upon these stones and pottery.

An interesting recent discovery actually lends credence to the second explanation though. We have recently discovered a T-Rex skeleton with marrow in the bones and flesh and skin still attached that has not rotted away or been fossilized at all. Preliminary testing indicates that the DNA may even be viable though so far there is degradation. Naturally, scientists are now looking at our understanding of decay rather than our understanding of history.

I propose that any of you out there perform the following experiment.

Take a pot, a washcloth, a steady heat source, and regular tap water. Fill the pot with tap water. Boil it. Add the washcloth. Keep the pot at least ¾ full at all times. In 2-5 years depending on the mineral content of your tap water you will have an honest to goodness fossilized washcloth on your hands.

The results of this experiment are compelling not in that it has any bearing on decay, but in that it may present us with a new understanding of the fossilization process. I find it equally compelling that there has been no further study on fossilization based upon the results of this experiment. It seems to show that in the presence of evaporating or percolating water that fossilization may actually happen in a few years rather than over thousands or millions of years. This may explain the intact soft tissues of the T-Rex that has recently been discovered. Combine these two things with the Ica Stones and pottery as well as the carving at the Temple of Ta Prohm and you have a reasonable case for a young Earth that may be thousands rather than billions of years old. If dinosaurs and man actually did coexist then evolution is proven false beyond all reasonable doubt and no amount of arguing can continue to fool people.

Naturally, there will be absolutely no scientific inquiry into any of this. Seriously, could you imagine how the world would be turned on it’s head if scientists actually gave proper study to this issue and *GASP* proved that it is possible that that dinosaurs only went extinct in the lat thousand years or so? Everything we know about astronomy and geology would be called into question. How could the universe appear so old and yet our tools for measuring it be so wrong? How could we mistake fossils a few thousand years old for being 65 million old or more? Is radiation dating even accurate? What assumptions have we been operating off of that gave us this false data? How did all of these layers of rock develop if not over hundreds of millions of years? How did the Grand Canyon get dug if the world is so young?

As you can see, the scientific confusion would be immense, and much of or knowledge would suddenly be called into serious question. And, of course, religious folks of all types would be trumpeting their various stories of Creation, much to the chagrin of Atheist scientists.

Me? I don’t see the problem. Science is simply an inquiry into the way the natural world works. If this universe was created to appear to be a certain age why should it bother me? If dinosaurs and man coexisted how does this affect medicine and technology? It doesn’t. It only affect our understanding of the history of the world, and evolution specifically. If other branches of science required evolution to be true in order to work then maybe I might be concerned. However, medicine works regardless of evolution. Surgery works regardless of evolution. Drugs work regardlss of evolution. What is a virus develops a slight change to its protein coat that makes it immune to current drugs? What id a bacterium does something similar? Simple. We find a new drug to kill it just like we always have. What about or understanding of genetic ancestry? Does genetic ancestry matter outside of each species? It seems to me to be a waste of time and money trying to determine is 6 different types of mosquitoes all came from a single proto-mosquito species millions of years ago. Just know them now so we can know which ones carry which diseases and how to kill them effectively. If the world is only a few thousand years old then evolution has not had time to cause any new species to appear and they have no common ancestor anyway.

Perhaps my attitude toward all of this is rather cavalier. It just seems to e that truth is more important than appearances. I want to know what ALL the evidence indicates. If selective evidence indicates evolution, and elective evidence indicate Creation, what does it indicate when you combine the whole mess? I shudder to say it, but might it actually indicate Intelligent Design? Or perhaps the combination simply wrecks evolution? Based upon the evidence I have a hard time seeing God eliminated from the equation at all.

So, who here is willing to actually study ALL the evidence without a specific agenda in mind? I don’t qualify. I want to see Creation supported as bad some of my readers want to see Evolution supported. A neutral party might actually say that there is some indication that either may be true and give an impartial study. For that we need a true Agnostic, not an Atheist or an Atheist claiming to be an Agnostic, and not a deeply religious person like myself. A true Agnostic would fit the bill, someone who simply doesn’t know and is open to anything. Good luck finding one who can’t be influenced by either side of the argument though. Money doesn’t talk, it screams these days.

Monday, June 26, 2006

Book Sales

Here is a fascinating tidbit.

The New York Times, THE list to make for book sales, THE authoritative tracking method of how well a book does as compared to other books does not track sales of books through Christian stores.

Sounds a lot like anti-Christian bias to me.

Christian book stores sell a huge volume of books, movies, and CD's. Almost every one of them is like a mini Banes and Noble or Borders book store, and there are thousands of them spread across the US. Many books that get no coverage i the mainstream press get HUGE exposure to the cgristian community, and these books wind up having a majority of thier sales through Christian book stores.

Take Frank Peretti for example. He sells as many books as Dean Koontz, but he has never been on the New York Times bestseller list because almost all of his sales are through Christian outlets. The Left Behind series has sold enough books on a steady basis to dominate the New york Times bestseller list with every release, but by being gypped of at least 20% of it's sales the remarkable success of this series is able to be reduced in the view of the public.

Just some food for thought.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006


Multiple subjects this time.

1: We now have proof that we did, in fact, find WMD’s in Iraq. In a recently declassified DOD document we are told that we have found stores of chemical weapons including Sarin and Mustard Gas shells. We are also told that this is just a sample of what we have found. On a personal note, this report is fully in line with what my fellow soldiers were telling me while I was still in the Army. They kept saying that the line that we did not find WMD’s was bullspit and that the only reason it wasn’t in the news was because we were finding them in small amounts scattered across the country rather than in a single massive cache.

In the kind of stupidity I have been bothered by, George Bush has not bothered to use the truth to silence his critics, preferring for some inexplicable reason to let people scream lies about him, his administration, or military, and the war in Iraq without countering with the proof that would expose them all as weak kneed defeatists who are just undermining America in a desperate bid to gain personal power. If I were President I would be everywhere with this news, with the incontrovertible proof of Saddam Hussein’s dealings with Al Qaeda, and every other bit of proof that exposes the lies of the political left in this country.

2: The UN has recently voted to allow commercial whaling. Ignoring the lessons of the past that whales do not reproduce at a rate that allows a sustainable commercial harvest the UN, in its typical retarded and careless manner has voted to allow commercial whaling again. The US opposed the measure which was supported by China and Denmark. This is a sad day for conservationists, real environmentalists, and environut activists as well. The only question that remains is whether the UN will see the error of its way in this instance before the species that are now allowed to be commercially harvested are depleted beyond recovery. Judging by the UN’s record, I doubt it.

3: San Francisco. Enough said.

4: The ACLU opposes a so called “Church” protesting outside the funerals of homosexuals and AIDS victims. However, they support these same nut cases protesting outside military funerals chanting the same anti-homosexual hate. Apparently the ACLU only supports free speech as long as it directed at people the ACLU hates.

5: On the same note, the ACLU supports suppressing the free speech rights of private citizens as long as these citizens are talking about Jesus. They are fully behind a Nevada school that cut the mic when their valedictorian, a student whose right to speak about religion is protected free speech under existing law as interpreted by the courts mentioned Jesus. Their claim? A Communist argument that this independent citizen, not under government employment is actually an agent of the state. Remember, Communism calss every private citizen an agent of the state. And people say the ACLU has abandoned its Communist roots. What a laugh!

6: Frank Murkowski, despite common belief, has done exactly what I predicted. He is running for reelection as Governor of Alaska. The election just got nasty, and I cannot be in it. It is a bittersweet day for me. On the one hand I am once again proven right about the course of politics. I swear I could have a successful career as a campaign manager or political strategist. On the other hand, I am unable to put it to work the way I had hoped this election cycle. I so could have won . . .

Monday, June 19, 2006

Update on the Biggest Tard in America

Those of you who have been reading this blog for awhile may remeber a contentious piece I wrote declaring Michael Newdow to be the biggest tard in America shortly after he launched his lawsuit to have "In God We Trust" removed from our currency. Well, here is an email I recieved from the American Center for Law and Justice, an activist group that I am a card carrying member of.

"Dear Daniel,

Before I share our upcoming broadcast schedule, I have a significant VICTORY to report ...

A federal district court in Sacramento, California, has dismissed the lawsuit filed by Michael Newdow challenging the constitutionality of our National Motto, ''In God We Trust.''

We filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case on behalf of our members and 47 members of Congress in support of the federal government's request to dismiss the suit. (And we stand ready if this decision is appealed.)

Thank you to all of our ACLJ members who supported our efforts ... this is your victory!"

As you can see, this case was so ridiculous it couldn't even get traction in the most liberal, anti-Christian court district in the USA. I wonder how much money Michael Newdow wasted on this ridiculous lawsuit?

For additional information on The ACLJ please click the link in my sidebar under Worthy Organizations.

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

An Atheist Quickie

No true Atheist is hostile to the Bible, or to religion in general. A true Atheist simply doesn't care. Hostile Atheists believe in God, the know He exists, and they hate him, so they are not actually Atheists.

Also, I have recently found out there is a registered Atheist Church that is recognized by the US Spreme Court as a legitimate church. This means that every Seperation of Church and State case that has resulted in the removal of a religious symbol or statement is a government endorsement of the Atheist Church and is a violation of Seperation and Church and State. Oh! The delicious irony! I think I shall have to seek to exploit this through the courts. Anyone feel like joionin gme in a clas action lawsuit demanding the natonwide restoration of all religiious symbols that hev been removed from public areas based on this argument?

Thursday, June 08, 2006

Goodbye and Good Riddance!

Al-Zarqawi’s dead today, doo-dah, doo-dah! Al-Zarqawi’s dead today oh doo-dah-day! The terrorist is dead! The terrorist is dead! Al-Zarqawi’s dead today oh doo-dah-daaaaaaay!

In case you didn’t notice, I am very pleased to announce the death of the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi! The man who has led the so-called insurgency, which has always been nothing more than a terrorist campaign led by this puke has lost its leader. Now to see if cutting off the head kills this beast, or if, like the hydra it, grows a new head to replace the old one.

At the very minimum this victory should give the terrorists pause and suck some of the fervor out of them. Make them less willing to fight. As long as their leader has been able to elude US forces they have been able to ignore their own horrific losses in the hopes that those who come after may yet succeed. Now, with no leader, and no known heir apparent, they will be splintered, leaderless, and disheartened. Some will look to Bin-Laden, but they will be disappointed. He is on the run and not in Iraq. If he goes to Iraq he will met the same fate as Al-Zarqawi did.

It was a bombing that got him. Not a roadside bomb or other IED, but a real bomb. A good old-fashioned aerial dropped manufactured in the good old USA bomb. The man who can now be linked to the deaths over 2,000 American military men and women has now joined the tens of thousands of insurgents and terrorists who have died under his command.

Today is also a great day for the people of Iraq. Right now they have an opportunity to seize control of their national situation and put down the insurgency once and for all with the help of the US. They can take advantage of the internal chaos within the insurgency and fracture it to a point that it can never recover. This done, they will finally know both peace and democracy. They will be able to walk down their streets, go to their schools, go to work, meet, greet, and enjoy life without the worry of some terrorist blowing himself up in their midst. They have this opportunity right now, and if they are wise they will take it.

For the US this means we are one step closer to both reducing our manpower in Iraq to close to nil and focusing more on the hunt for Bin Laden, or we are one step closer to invading Iran and doing everything we have just done in Iraq all over again. Truth be told I can live with either option since both of them probably need to happen whether anyone wants them to or not.

Politically this is a significant event. If it works out in such a way that the insurgency dies down significantly or dies out altogether Iraq will be an indisputable victory, and all the talk about quagmires and failure will be proven utterly false, and those who have been making such negative claims will become the objects of ridicule and distrust. I can live with this. It has always been my position that the people who have been actively undermining the war effort here at home have been simply trying to advance their own political careers at the cost of American lives overseas. The constant rhetoric about Iraq being a failure and the need to turn it into another Vietnam by quitting are enemies of America in my opinion. I say this because such an action would prove to the terrorists that we are weak with no stomach for a fight, and the WILL start attacking our homeland in droves. Our sticking out to final victory is the only way to win this thing in the long term. Today, we may have just hit the catalyst that speeds victory along. Only time will tell.

Wednesday, June 07, 2006

A Rare Venting

There is something I have been holding in for awhile now while I was waiting for this problem to be fixed. It has not. Oddly enough, what I am about to say is going both please and annoy both my conservative and my liberal readers to varying degrees.

I have a problem with President Bush

It is not that I no longer like him. IT is not that I am against the war. And it is not that I no longer support him for the most part. I just have a problem right now that has not resolved itself yet.

President Bush seems to have lost the will to fight. He spent his first time fighting and getting things done in an admirable fashion. He was shaping up to be one of our greatest Presidents of all time. However, His second term is not progressing so well. I have two specific complaints.

The first is that he seems to have had his spirit broken by the failure of his attempt to bring some desperately needed reforms to Social Security. This failure, thanks entirely to the raw, hostile partisanship of the Democrats has doomed Social security to ultimate collapse. It will go bankrupt and it will leave our elderly starving and homeless as a result. Way to go Dems. Since this failure President Bush has gone from a strong and confident leader to a timid man who makes every step tentatively, always worried that his next move will meet the same fate as Social Security Reform. As a result not much is actually getting done right now as The Democrats continue their strategy of Screw America Over as Much as Possible and Blame the Republicans to Get Back Power for the Democrats. Such partisanship is probably the worst problem in US politics today. I, for one, am sick of it while also being driven deeper into it by the sheer insanity of the situation.

The second complaint I have is that President Bush is simply pathetic when it comes to border security. He is toeing the line of national self destruction every time he comes out in favor of illegal aliens. Don’t get me wrong, I am for LEGAL immigration. I think it should be easier, take less time, and be more affordable. I also think that there are some common sense reforms that are needed in order to improve the quality of our immigrants, such as restricting the family spillover to spouse and children only rather than allowing it to bring the entire extended family of an immigrant to the US. I think our Amnesty program should be extended to allow refugees from Communist nations to arrive here without having to worry about being sent back to their old country where they will assuredly be persecuted, and possibly imprisoned or even killed for running away. And I think that we need to provide strict enforcement of every anti-illegal immigration law on the books. Take away every incentive for sneaking in here and they will stop coming. President Bush apparently favors open borders and millions of illegals over doing what is actually in our best interests. On this issue he sounds just like a Democrat.

Well. That felt good to get out.

Oh, and for the record, I would still have President Bush over almost any Democrat I can think of. The only Democrat I can fully support is Zell Miller. Two others I may be able to support are Bill Richardson and Joe Lieberman. But with all of them I have serious concerns about their potential Judicial appointments.

Tuesday, June 06, 2006

A Question

Is there any way that past human cultures coud have had knowledge similar to our own in regards to dinosaurs? I am not speaking hypothetically, but inactual reality. Did even the more advanced cultures of the past have the knowledge of dinosaurs to be able to present pictures that are physiologically accurate about dinosaurs?

This is just a debate question. I am genuinely curious to see ehat my readers think. I will not be participatiing in this debate personally.

Friday, June 02, 2006

The Numbers Game and Claims to Legitimacy

Some interesting factoids. With all of the various religions out there claiming to be the fastest growing religion in the world, which one is correct?

Islam claims to be the fastest growing, and by sheer numbers this is true, but it is not completely accurate.

Hasidic Judaism does not claim to be the fastest growing, but it is the fastest growing religion in the world based on growth percentage. The number of Hasidic Jews is doubling every 6 years. No other religion in the world is matching this feat.

Mormonism claims to be the fastest growing religion in the world, and it is the fastest growing by numbers in terms of converts. When the frantic breeding pace of the Muslim world is removed from the equation, the Mormons are outstripping the Muslims.

So, depending on how you measure growth, we have 3 different fastest growing religions in the world.

Don’t you just love statistics?

Thursday, June 01, 2006

A Guess Too Far

It's Wednesday, and this week, instead of my usual evolution post I am posting a semi-related article on paleontology. Stuff like this makes me just sorta sigh and shake my head in disbelief at the simple-minded irresponsibility of it all.

As a lover of science, good science, I tend to be a bit perturbed when I encounter stories like this.

A 41 foot carnivorous dinosaur, named Mapusaurus roseae has been discovered. It is thought to be a pack hunter that took down large suarpods. All of this is based off of the discovery a single, 100 million year old 3 ft long shinbone.

Note that all of this information has somehow been gleaned from a single shinbone.

I repeat, all this from one shinbone.


When exactly did responsibility and science part company? This kind of irresponsible jumping to conclusions is becoming all too common.

Let’s assume for a moment that this bone is in fact, definitely a shinbone. This seems like a realistic thing to do because we are pretty good at identifying bone types. Where does all the rest of that come from?

How do we know that shinbone is even from a theropod if we have nothing else? Is it not possible that it is from a four legged dinosaur?

If it is from a two legged dinosaur, how do we know it was a carnivore instead of a very large two legged herbivore like the various duckbilled dinosaurs? We have found no teeth or skull structures.

And where the hell does this hunt in pack bit come from? Yes there were large suarpods in the same area, but this does not mean that any carnivores were busy hunting them in packs? Is there even one carnivore alive that hunts full grown elephants in packs? No. Therefore we have evidence in nature that we can observe that says that enormous size like the great suarpods had can be an effective defensive measure that eradicates predation on adults. We have absolutely no evidence of pack behavior in this new dinosaur. We have nothing but one shinbone.

As much as my imagination likes to be able to create images of a possible past, I don’t see anything of sufficient quality here to make any such speculations and call it science. How trained scientists can is a mystery to me.

One thing I do know for certain. If they ever find a similar shinbone, and a nearby skull of appropriate size has the broad, flat teeth of an herbivore there will be some seriously embarrassed storytellers, I mean scientists.


Once in a great while I manage to go off half cocked. After reviewing more information about the dinosaur in this article I must admit that this was one such time.

Based upon a full review of the evidence I have to make an amendment to my initial assesment. It turns out that the size if the dinosaur was detrmined by the bone in question, but there were other bones at the site that were used to make the other determinations. Most importantly, there were skull and jaw fragments as well at least one tooth recovered from the site that provides more than ample evidence suggesting this dinosaur was indeed a carnivore.

Also, the supposed pack behavior was based upon the the fact that the toes of 7 distinct inviduals were discovered on the exact same site as the very first bone. The scientists who evaluated the evidence took it to mean that Mapusaurus Rosae was a pack hunter that took down prey much larger than itself. They are entitled to their professional opinion, however, it only took a few seconds to concoct other explanations that are equally valid based upon the evidence that was found. They are as follows:

1- There were so many remains in such a small place because ancient terain features were favorable to these animals dying there, such a pitfall or narrow ledge and it indicates nothing about the behavior of this animal.

2- Mapusaurus Rosae was a migratory hunter, and this was the nesting grounds. What was uncovered was a place used by many of this animal over generations due certain favorable conditions at the time. It did not hunt in packs, but chose this are to nest because of the young Saurpods recently hatched. Being a solitary hunter such abundant, and easy to kill prey would be a fantastic food source for a growing family.

3- The dinosaur may have hunted animals smaller than itself in a solitary fasion in the pattern of most large predators. The number of individuals found in this one spot are a concidence resulting from an abundamce of the animal in the are over the span of the species existence.

4- Many males of carnivourous animals will prey upon the young of thier own species in order to eliminate the offspring of the competition. It is possible that the younger individuals are there as a result of such predation at a lair or nest. The larger specimens are potentially the remains of mortally wounded males who were attacked by infuriated mothers, or possibly the remains of mothers who died atthe nest from mortal wounds.

5- In nature, sometimes even solitary aminals have an event that brings many of them together at one time. One fine example is deer in rut. A male will gather a herd of females temporarily for breeding pourposes. this could have been once such harem that was beset by a majar calamity resltin in the deat of most or all of the individuals i the group.

All of these alternatives are equally viable based upon the evidence on hand. The way scientists have jumped to conclusion sabout the behavior of a dinosaur we still know practically nothing about is irresponsible. There is no need to go beyond the fact and start teling stories just because you don;t have enough evidence to prove yourself right or wrong. The scientists who made all of these iresponsible assumptions regarding the behavior of this animal are still irresponsible storytellers, they just made up thier stories with a little more evidence than I initally knew about.

Listed on BlogShares