My Top Baker's Dozen Anomalies
There are thousands of books, articles, documentaries, TV shows
and websites that are or have been devoted to anomalies or mysteries or
the unknown. From UFOs and ancient astronauts to Bigfoot to Atlantis, to
ESP to the Bermuda Triangle to religious miracles, the list is
seemingly endless. Some are pretty iffy; some have a good bona-fide
pedigree. No two people will come up with identical lists of what to
them are their top anomalies. There's just too many that capture the
imagination of the great unwashed. Different strokes for different
folks. Here's my list - at this point in time anyway.
ACCELERATING
UNIVERSE: The anomaly here is quite straightforward in that there's
considerable observational evidence that the expansion rate of the
Universe is accelerating. However, logic dictates that because of the
overall gravity that the Universe has, the expansion rate of the
Universe should be decelerating. The 'antigravity' energy required to
accelerate the Universe's expansion has to come from somewhere, and in
ever increasing amounts to keep on keeping on the ever increasing rate
of acceleration, yet, the Universe, almost by definition, already
contains all there is and ever will be. If extra 'antigravity' energy is
being created, it's being created out of nothing. Something from
nothing is a clear violation of the basic conservation laws and
principles that form the bedrock of modern science.
NEITH: Neith
is, or was, the now-you-see-it-now-you-don't. now-forever-lost satellite
of our twin planet (in size if nothing else), Venus. The anomaly here
is that bona-fide professional astronomers, not one but numerous
celebrated astronomers, including Giovanni Cassini (1625-1712), sighted,
noted and logged the existence of the damn thing and wrote up their
findings in their professional journals. Okay, the time period was the
mid-1600s to mid-1700s, but the professional eyeballs and the
professional equipment was good enough to verify one way or the other
the presence or absence of a reasonably sized natural satellite in orbit
around Venus.
Of over thirty sightings of Neith, the best known
and verified were in 1645, 1672, 1686, 1740, 1759, 1761 and 1764
(multiple sightings on numerous days in March). Observations over that
stretch of period would seemingly rule out the 'satellite' being a faint
star or asteroid or outer planet like Uranus or Neptune that just
happened to be way beyond Venus but in the direct line of sight.
Sometimes the observed phase of Neith matched the phase of Venus, which
again suggests that the object was in close proximity to the planet.
Venus,
inward and closer to the Sun than Earth, is a very visible and
prominent celestial object when viewed from Earth, commonly called the
Morning and Evening 'Star'. We've all seen Venus; in fact if you know
exactly where to look it can be seen in the daytime sky. Venus is far
enough away from the Sun that the Sun's glare doesn't drown out
reflected light from Venus, and presumably any objects near or in orbit
around Venus. A natural satellite of Venus of any reasonable size should
be readily detectable with the astronomical equipment available at the
time. And so it really didn't raise any astronomical eyebrows when Neith
was in fact discovered. The anomaly here is that all and sundry were
wrong. Neith doesn't exist. Venus has no natural satellite(s). Now
either all and sundry were totally incompetent and wouldn't know one end
of a telescope from the other, or else Neith really existed but somehow
exited the local neighborhood. If that's the case, then Neith wasn't
natural at all but under intelligent control, and not by any terrestrial
intelligence. What Neith was, and where it disappeared to, are major
anomalies.
DRAGONS: The anomaly here is that if dragons and
dragon-lore was the product of just one culture at say one particular
point in time, the concept could be easily dismissed. But when they
appear in every culture, from ancient times even up through the 1700's
when they were still part of natural history, then one needs to pay
closer attention. That's all the more so since dragons were taken very
seriously indeed. In China they were the emissaries between the gods and
the emperor, and woe beholds any of lesser rank that wore a dragon
image on their person. Dragons and dragon-lore form a major part of what
passes for science-fantasy today. There's probably no child over the
age of five who can't wax lyrical and tell you all about dragon-lore.
The best guess scenario is that while dragons may be considered mythical
today; they certainly were not, not too awfully that many generations
ago. If that's the case, if dragons were really real once upon a time,
then the anomaly is - no fossils.
GHOSTS: The anomaly here is that
you've had hundreds of thousands, probably even millions, of
observations of ghosts or ghostly manifestations since recorded history
started being, well, recorded. Sightings of apparitions or specters or
spirits, whatever, have been made and reported from every possible type
of person from every possible walk of life. They can't all be mistaken.
The fly in the ointment is that all of this is without there being the
slightest shred of physical, chemical or biological theory that can back
up the sightings. There is just no way a deceased body can split in two
and end up being half dead (the part that's buried or cremated) and
half animated (the ghost), yet the ghost, since it is animated, it can
been seen and heard and interact with the surrounding environment after
all, must be composed of matter and energy which presumable had to have
been part and parcel of the original body to start with. As such the
ghost needs to feed to replenish that matter and expended energy and no
doubt perform related bodily functions. No physics or chemistry or
biology known to mankind can manipulate a deceased body's matter and
energy in such a way as to account for that body's ghost.
So
ghosts are all observation with no adequate theory to support them
(unlike say the UFO extraterrestrial hypothesis which has solid theory
to back up the possibility). There is no viable way of splitting a body
up into two whole (matter and energy) parts at least one of which is
viable (alive) and that applies equally to out-of-the-body experiences
and near-death experiences. Another question: If that were possible, why
stop at two (the ghost and the dead body; the out-of-the-body body and
the body it came from; the near-death body and its animated counterpart)
- why not a trio or thirty or three hundred 'clones'?
OLMEC STONE
HEADS: Associated with the long since defunct cultures of the Olmecs,
the first major civilization of the Americas, were multi-ton solid stone
heads - just the heads; in the round. Anomaly one - nobody has any real
clue why the Olmecs carved out these stone heads which would have taken
quite some considerable effort. Anomaly two - the parent stones,
weighing many, many tons, had to be transported from mountain quarries
multi-dozens of miles away without benefit of the wheel or beasts of
burden, through swampy jungle terrain; how was this done? Anomaly three -
though the Olmecs were natives of Mexico, the stone heads look
absolutely African, and there was no apparent cultural contact between
Africa and Central America BCE.
SHAVED NAZCA RIDGE: On the
dissected Plain of Nazca (or Nazca desert or plateau) in Peru, there is a
famous landmark, or marks - the 'carvings' or etchings of dozens of
images on the Plain than can only be appreciated or even recognized for
what they are from the air, which is how they were discovered in the
20th Century. The ground images aren't the anomaly since it's not
difficult to construct them and their purpose was probably meant as a
message or homage to the gods up in the Nazca version of heaven.
The
minor anomaly is that in addition to the etched pictogram images there
are many lines, even parallel lines, etched in the pebbly desert that
run straight as arrows for long distances, purpose unknown, though some
sort of obscure astronomical alignment might be their purpose. That's
still a theoretical option though obvious astronomical alignments have
not passed muster.
The real anomaly here is that one of the ridges
in the local area has had it's top lopped off, resulting now in a flat
surfaced 'ridge', a surface as smooth as a baby's bottom as if a hot
knife sliced through soft butter. All other ridges in the area look like
well natural ridges. Now the first bit is how. This flattened ridge is
not a natural formation so presumably humans flattened it. The second
bit is why. It must have been a massive undertaking removing not dirt or
soil or sand but solid rock for reason(s) unknown to us. The third bit
is that there is no debris field or piles of rubble left over from the
leveling. The rock must have been carted away, expending yet more time,
effort and energy. Something is screwy somewhere. Erich von Daniken, of
ancient astronaut fame, thought the flattened surface of the now
ridge-less ridge could've served as a 'runway' for flying saucers, but
that seems equally screwy. As I say, this is anomalous, full stop.
CROP
CIRCLES: There's no disputing, no matter how much the pseudoscience
skeptic you are, that crop circles do exist. There are numerous
pissed-off farmers whose fields have been vandalized; multi-thousands of
after-the-fact eyewitness accounts and an equal number of films and
photographs, as well as on-site and laboratory analysis of the
phenomena. Observation here is at the 100% certainty level. Finding
logical and rational theoretical explanations are however way more
challenging than a 'take two aspirin and call me in the morning' type of
remedy or diagnosis. In fact, no matter what theory is advanced,
natural, human or alien, there are massive flaws to be had with each.
No
natural phenomena can create a myriad of massive geometrically complex
perfect constructions using agricultural crops as the medium. The
challenge for a human, or even a team of humans, to create the same in
total darkness in just a few hours (this is a summertime event - long
days; short nights), without mistakes, without leaving their traces
(footprints, tire tracks, litter, etc) without ever getting caught,
tried and convicted for trespass and vandalism, is beyond the
theoretical pale for even the most ardent of skeptics and skeptical
explanations, though human hoaxes are the fallback position, albeit
without real evidence. As for ET, why they would travel vast distances
to, at least in part, dabble in agricultural graffiti, defies our
understanding. If crop circles are an attempt by aliens to communicate
with humans, well, there's been a failure to communicate. Theory here is
at the near 100% uncertainty level. There's a long road to hoe yet to
reconcile observation and theory.
ALIEN ABDUCTIONS: The anomaly
here is that you have hundreds, if not thousands of case histories by
individuals whose testimony you wouldn't think twice about questioning
in just about any other context, yet 1) the scenario seems rather absurd
at face value, and 2) why are there so few and far between independent
witnesses for what should be at face value be a scenario that's
impossible to conceal from the rest of the outside world. But, I'm not
in any position to call these abductees either liars or delusional or
mentally ill. In fact I'm sure they are not because who in their right
mind would invent such a horrifying scenario, one perpetrated upon
themselves.
HUMAN UNIQUENESS: The anomaly here is that we humans
are not just a different species to all others past and present, but
vastly, vastly different. Four vastly different differences in
particular strike me as odd.
We alone of all the mammals are
bipedal. We alone of all the primates are 'furless' - the "Naked Ape" as
Desmond Morris described us. We alone of all species that are and have
ever been, are top of the pops in IQ; king of the hill by an
extraordinary wide margin in intelligence or the ability to figure
things out, call it what you will, plus the use of tools and technology
way above that of any other species. Lastly, humans have very distinct
facial features - it's usually how we recognize the identity of another
human we've seen before. With all other animal species, you're hard
pressed to tell one individual from another based on facial features.
You see one sheep's face, you've seen them all. You tend to recognize
individuals of other species by size, color and colored patterns, some
sort of deformity or abnormality, not by their distinctive facial
features which don't really exist.
If it suits all the other
mammals to adopt a four-legged gait and be quadrupeds; if it suited our
nearly 200 other primate cousins to retain their fur; if all other
species can exist, survive, even thrive without screwdrivers, the
automobile, plastics, central heating, the dishwasher, the Internet and
the atomic bomb then we have an anomaly here. Every animal species is
different from every other animal species, obviously, but there are
differences and then there are DIFFERENCES! The human species is so far
out in left field as to be nearly out of the biodiversity ballpark.
SPONTANEOUS
HUMAN COMBUSTION: The anomaly here is that, albeit very rare, the human
body can spontaneously burst into flame, killing the victim and turning
the body into ash. It's anomalous in that 1) the human body is composed
mainly of water which you don't tend to associate with fire or
spontaneous combustion; 2) the body's temperature of 98.6 degrees
Fahrenheit is hardly scorching heat; 3) this anomaly isn't noticed in
animals; 4) the fire is localized to just the body and immediate
surroundings despite the intense heat needed to consume a human body,
and obvious sources of external fire, say a burning candle, are usually
lacking. The closest theory is that perhaps the victim's body was
saturated with alcohol from excessive drinking, and alcohol of course
can burn, but that rarely fitted the lifestyle of the victim and it
would take one hell of a drinking binge to saturate bodily tissues with
alcohol in high enough concentrations to cause the body to combust.
Since animals don't spontaneously combust, that tends to rule out body
fat as a fuel source.
RADIOACTIVITY: The anomaly here is that
radioactivity, the decay of unstable atomic nuclei into more stable
configurations happens in a precise mathematical way, called the
half-life of the unstable nuclei. This is a verified measurement and
bona-fide observation. If you start with say 1000 unstable nuclei of
substance X, time how long it takes for the first 500 to decay to a
stable state. Once you have that, then you know another 250 unstable
nuclei will decay in the exact same amount of time, and another 125
ditto, and so on down the line. But theoretically, how do these
unintelligent, inanimate nuclei 'know' when it's their turn to decay to
uphold this half-life relationship when there are all kinds of
alternatives? You can imagine that the decay process could be, should
be, random and haphazard, or follow a bell-shaped distribution curb,
like say autumn leaves falling off a tree - a few at first, then a lot,
then many, then a lot of what's left, then the rest of the few left. Or,
it would be logical to think that if 500 out of 1000 nuclei decay in
say one hour, that all (the remaining 500) will go poof in two hours - a
linear relationship. Anyway, observation shows it's the half-life
relationship that Mother Nature decided upon, but there's no theory to
back up that relationship vis-à-vis any other IMHO.
The other and
probably more serious anomaly is that there is no accepted trigger
mechanism. An unstable nucleus just goes poof for no apparent reason.
There is no cause to this effect. You cannot trigger unstable nuclei
into going poof by hammering on it, subjecting it to extreme heat or
cold, pouring acid on it or by any other physical and/or chemical means
as your disposal. Take two identical unstable nuclei, side by side. One
goes poof and the other doesn't. Why? Lack of causality is an anomaly in
itself and deeply disturbing. Things happen for a reason. Cause and
effect should go back in an unbroken chain right back to the Big Bang
(something else which apparently happened for no discernible reason at
all).
WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY: Of all things anomalous, quantum
physics has to be right up there in the running for the gold medal. On
the one hand, it has been verified to incredible levels of precision and
when applied in technologies in our modern world, forms the basis for a
goodly percentage of the global economy. On the other hand, it makes
absolutely no sense, common or otherwise, at all. That's why the mantra
of those employed in applying and dealing with quantum physics, or
quantum mechanics as it is often termed, tends to be "shut up and
calculate and don't worry about what it means".
In our everyday
macro world, bullets and billiard balls behave in a predictable fashion.
They are macro particles that don't wave all over the bloody place,
otherwise a soldier would never hit his target and a game of billiards
would be a farce. You certainly don't want your car waving on down the
highway. But if you lived in the micro (quantum) world, that's exactly
what would happen. Take the infamous double-slit experiment.
If
you shine a beam of light, which is but little bullets called photons,
or fire any other elementary particle (or micro bullet) for that matter
like electrons at a single open slit, the pattern you get at a target
behind that slit is just a blob of bullet-like hits. Everything behaves
like particles or like bullets. But if you fire those little bullets at a
double slit - two slits side by side, the target behind the double slit
will show not two separate blobs, but a traditional wave interference
pattern spread out over a wide area of alternating high and low
concentrations of where the little bullets hit, or didn't hit. Strange
doings that.
Well obviously the little bullets are somehow
interfering with themselves while in flight, so the next bit is to shoot
them off just one-at-a-time, so that one bullet hits the target behind
the slit(s) before the next bullet is fired. That way, bullets in flight
can't get in the way of other bullets. When you do that with a single
slit, you eventually get a single blob of bullet hits on the target
that's behind: so far so good. Now fire off your one-at-a-time photon or
electron bullets at the double slits. You would expect two blobs, one
behind each slit. That's what you'd expect, but that's not what you get.
What you see is what you get and what you see is still that classic
wave interference pattern. So your little photon or electron bullets
behave both like bullets or particles, but at the same time behave like
waves: wave-particle duality rules the quantum roost. Something is
screwy somewhere!
GOD: This isn't really an anomaly due to any
conflict between theory and observation. There is very little of either.
The anomaly here is why anyone in their right mind would believe in
such a supernatural deity. The gap between observational evidence and
theoretical faith is so vast that it staggers the mind - at least it
boggles my mind, all the more so since the only real description of
God's bona-fides, the human penned Old Testament, exhibits Him not as a
just, loving, forgiving, merciful and compassionate deity but an
all-round SOB that makes Hitler look downright cuddly.
