Vice President Pence laid out an ambitious plan Thursday that would begin creating a military command dedicated to space and establish a “Space Force” as the sixth branch of the U.S. military as soon as 2020, the first since the Air Force was formed shortly after World War II.
Pence warned of the advancements that potential adversaries are making and issued what amounted to a call to arms to preserve the military’s dominance in space.
“Just as we’ve done in ages past, the United States will meet the emerging threats on this new battlefield,” he said in a speech at the Pentagon. “The time has come to establish the United States Space Force.”
No one is safe from the space force.
But the monumental task of standing up a new military department, which would require approval by a Congress that shelved the idea last year, may require significant new spending and a reorganization of the largest bureaucracy in the world. And the idea has already run into fierce opposition inside and outside the Pentagon, particularly from the Air Force, which could lose some of its responsibilities.
Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said last year that he opposed a new department of the military “at a time when we are focused on reducing overhead and integrating joint warfighting functions.”
This week, Mattis said the Pentagon and the White House “are in complete alignment” on the need to view space as a warfighting domain. But he stopped short of endorsing a full-fledged Space Force. In a briefing with reporters after Pence’s speech, Deputy Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan suggested that Mattis’s comments opposing the Space Force were made at a different time, before the Pentagon received a bolstered budget.
Yes, of course the existing military is opposed to the formation of a space force. They understand how much of a threat it could become.
Most of the US military leadership has already been corrupted by Jews, communists and politicians. The creation of a new branch of the military could potentially allow it to be free of such corruption. Moreover, because of its high-tech nature, it would certainly have to be filled with scientists and engineers, rather than politician-type officers.
The existing military fears a new branch of the military which is loyal to Trump, Trumpism and America instead of the Jews.
This is the Jew’s worst nightmare.
The reality is that they’re right to be afraid.
Because if worst came to worst and a civil war broke out, the Space Force would determine the winner. Ships and satellites in space aren’t merely useful for fighting in space – they’re also automatically weapons platforms that can rain down death and destruction on earth with pinpoint accuracy and unimaginable destructive power.
From orbit, a fist-sized ball of tungsten flung at the right speed and angle could easily sink an aircraft carrier or destroy a bunker – with no possible defense. What’s worse, it would be nearly impossible for ground forces to strike back at space-based weapons. Missiles could easily be shot down. Rocket launches could be interrupted.
Such a weapon is neither expensive nor high-tech – as long as you build it in space.
A space force would have total military supremacy over the entire earth, making most of the rest of the US armed forces redundant.
If such an organization were loyal to White America, rather than the Jews… It’d be game over for our enemies.
We can only hope that Trump manages to both establish it and set it up in such a way as to purge traitors from its ranks.
This presentation is a great overview of the many finds in North America that show a great civilization, which is not Amerindian, resided here for thousands of years.
A race of giants did indeed inhabit North America BEFORE the “Native Americans” arrived. It’s no wonder the Native Americans do not allow excavation of ancient burial sites – it would dispel the myth they were the first Americans. You see, they were the ones who killed the giants, and these so called giants, were ancient Europeans.
Rewriting the story of humanity’s origins: Fossil records suggest our ancestors evolved right across Africa and not just in one region
Experts found humans were not fully formed when they spread across the world
Primitive skulls and bones of homo sapiens do not show a linear progression
Instead the development is much more patchy from primitive to modern
It took hundreds of thousands of years before all humans began to look as we do
A new study says the fossil record does not support humans being fully formed when they spread across the world. Left: African skull from around 300,000 years ago Right: Skull from the Levant dating from around 95,000 years ago
Primitive skulls and bones of homo sapiens do not show a linear progression from primitive to modern.
Instead the development is much more patchy – showing that it took hundreds of thousands of years before all humans began to look as we do today.
Studies of the DNA of modern day Africans – the most genetically diverse continent on Earth – paints a similar picture.
It shows human populations across the continent are so different they must have been separated for huge chunks of time.
Scientists now suggest there must have been, multiple areas where different groups of humans developed different physical features.
These early bands of early humans then interbred over millennia. Only then did modern humans as we know them develop.
The fossil record suggests early homo sapiens were a patchwork quilt of different groups.
Dr Eleanor Scerri, an archaeologist at Oxford University, who led the international research, told The Guardian: ‘This single origin, single population view has stuck in people’s mind … but the way we’ve been thinking about it is too simplistic.’
The spread of humans led to local adaptation and development of unique primitive technologies. This image shows Middle Stone Age cultural artefacts from northern and southern Africa
Modern humans have small, slender faces, large round braincases, and chins.
If these features only evolved in one group of humans, we might expect to see a series of skulls going from larger to smaller faces, and gradually bigger, rounder braincases.
The fossil picture is much more complicated.
For example, skulls dating to 300,000 years ago found at Jebel Irhoud in Morocco – have small faces like modern humans.
But instead of a spherical braincase, theirs is long and elongated.
Meanwhile early human fossils dating more recently to 160,000 years ago – at Herto in Ethiopia – had big ‘robust’ faces – unlike us – but with ‘globular’ braincases like ours.
Professor Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum and Dr Scerri have put forward the case in the journal Trends in Ecology and Evolution.
The authors said early humans were largely kept apart by a combination of diverse habitats and shifting environmental boundaries, such as forests and deserts.
Many of the most inhospitable regions in Africa today, such as the Sahara, were once wet and green, with interwoven networks of lakes and rivers, and abundant wildlife.
Designers used the fossils to recreate what they think the first Homo sapiens across Africa looked like 300,000 years ago. But the new research suggests early humans had a huge variation in the sizes and shapes of their heads
Similarly, some tropical regions that are humid and green today were once arid.
The shifting nature of these habitable zones meant human populations would have gone through many cycles of isolation.
This led to local adaptation and the development of unique primitive technologies – stone tools – and genetic makeup.
Professor Stringer pioneered the idea one big human population developed in Africa and spread worldwide – but now concedes this does not fit the facts.
He said when we look at human bones over the last 300,000 years ‘we see a complex mix of archaic and modern features in different places and at different times.
‘We do see a continental-wide trend towards the modern human form, but some archaic features are present until remarkably recently.’
When it comes to the development of stone tools, the pattern is also mixed.
Sometimes sophisticated tools appear further back in the fossil record, while cruder ones appear more recently – suggesting innovations occurred at different spots on the map at different times.
Prof Chris Stringer added: ‘Although I am one of the researchers who originally helped to develop the view that our species, Homo sapiens, had originated in Africa, I have increasingly come to the realisation that our African origin was a complex process.
‘The great diversity of African fossils between 200,000 and 400,000 years ago suggests that multiple lineages existed on the African continent at that time.’
This artist’s impression shows the patchwork of diverse fossils, artefacts and environments across Africa indicate that our species emerged from the interactions between a set of interlinked populations living across the continent, whose connectivity changed through time
Dr Scerri, said the stone tools discovered across Africa also don’t show a clear progression from crude to sophisticated.
She added that while there ‘is a continental-wide trend’ to greater sophistication over time, she said: ‘this ‘modernization’ clearly doesn’t originate in one region or occur at one time period.’
Professor Mark Thomas said the genetic patterns found in modern day Africans also support the idea.
He said: ‘It is difficult to reconcile the genetic patterns we see in living Africans, and in the DNA extracted from the bones of Africans who lived over the last 10,000 years, with there being one ancestral human population.’
Dr Scerri said: ‘The evolution of human populations in Africa was multi-regional. Our ancestry was multi-ethnic. And the evolution of our material culture was, well, multi-cultural.’
When it comes to the origins of our species, Homo sapiens, most scholars have accepted that we originated in Africa around 300,000 years ago, likely from a single population.
However, research published in the journal Trends in Ecology & Evolution has challenged this view, suggesting that our ancestors were scattered across the entire African continent and did not stem from a specific region.
This fractured evolution meant that our species was both physically and culturally diverse right from the very beginning, according to an interdisciplinary group of researchers led by Eleanor Scerri, an archaeologist from the University of Oxford and the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History.
For the study, the team combined approaches from various disciplines, including anthropology, archaeology and genetics, in addition to reconstructing Africa’s past climate, to build a picture of how modern humans have evolved over the last 300,000 years.
They found that not only were Homo sapiens scattered across Africa when we emerged as a species, but these populations were also largely kept apart due to a combination of physical barriers, such as forests and deserts, leading to diversification.
However, these environments often shifted over time, spurring migrations which created some contact opportunities. This may have meant that populations could have gone through cycles of cultural and genetic mixing before becoming isolated again.
This new model of human evolution better explains the available genetic, fossil and archaeological evidence, the researchers said.
For example, this model can explain why human bone fossils from the last 300,000 years vary significantly, with a mix of archaic and modern features appearing in different places and at different times.
“In the fossil record, we see a mosaic-like, continental-wide trend toward the modern human form, and the fact that these features appear at different places at different times tells us that these populations were not well connected,” Scerri, said in a statement.
The archaeological evidence also lends weight to the new hypothesis.
“Stone tools and other artifacts—usually referred to as material culture—have remarkably clustered distributions in space and through time,” Scerri said. “While there is a continental-wide trend toward more sophisticated material culture, this ‘modernization’ clearly doesn’t originate in one region or occur at one time period.”
Evolutionary changes are seen between the skull bones of two different Homo sapiens. New findings suggest that modern humans evolved in populations that were scattered across the African continent. Philipp Gunz, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
Evolutionary changes are seen between the skull bones of two different Homo sapiens. New findings suggest that modern humans evolved in populations that were scattered across the African continent. Philipp Gunz, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology
Finally, the team’s analysis of the available genetic data indicates that the single origin model is insufficient, according to Mark Thomas, a geneticist from University College London and co-author of the study.
“It is difficult to reconcile the genetic patterns we see in living Africans, and in the DNA extracted from the bones of Africans who lived over the last 10,000 years, with there being one ancestral human population,” he said. “We see indications of reduced connectivity very deep in the past, some very old genetic lineages, and levels of overall diversity that a single population would struggle to maintain.”
The new research highlights how the evolution of modern humans in Africa was a multiregional, multiethnic and multicultural phenomenon, Scerri concluded.
A homo sapiens skull on display at the Sirindhorn Museum of Nature and Science in Thailand. Credit: Shutterstock
Early Humans Probably Didn’t Evolve from a Single Population in Africa
By Yasemin Saplakoglu, Staff Writer |
Homo sapiens are incredibly diverse — we live in wildly different societies, follow different rules and love and fear different gods.
Despite that awesome diversity, mounting evidence suggests the first humans were even more different from one another than we are today.
In a new commentary published online on Wednesday (July 11) in the journal Trends in Ecology & Evolution, an interdisciplinary group that includes geneticists, bioanthropologists, and archaeologists argues that we didn’t evolve from a single population in a single region of Africa, but rather from separate populations across Africa that fully mixed only much later. [Image Gallery: Our Closest Human Ancestor]
Evidence is showing that “human ancestors were already scattered across Africa,” said Eleanor Scerri, a research fellow at Oxford University and lead author of the paper. And “the combination of behavioral and physical and cognitive features that define us today started to slowly emerge within the occasional mixing of these different ancestral groups,” she added. (Scerri is also a research associate for the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in Germany.)
To draw this conclusion, Scerri and her team not only looked at the available fossil evidence, but also at genetic, archaeological and paleoenvironmental data.
About half a million years ago, Neanderthals and Homo sapiensbegan to diverge from a common ancestor, according to Scerri. But only around 300,000 years ago did early people actually begin to have features that made them look like humans, she said.
Even then, “all the fossils between 300,000 years ago and about 100,000 years ago don’t really look like anyone living today,” Scerri told Live Science. The features that define us today, such as a small face, prominent chins, a globular skull and small teeth, were indeed present back then, but not all in a single person, she said.
“These features tend to be distributed across the early fossils in different combinations with different, what we call, more primitive or archaic features that we don’t see in anyone living today,” Scerri said. So, someone in Eastern Africa may have had the small teeth, whereas someone in southern Africa may have had a globular skull while the rest of their features remained primitive.
And these groups remained separate for a long time, because the dense forests and deserts in Africa served as formidable barriers, according to Scerri. But with the occasional mixing of different groups, between 100,000 and 40,000 years ago, fossils that combine all the modern features in a single individual begin to appear, Scerri said.
“Which means, of course, that evolution probably progressed at a different speed and tempo in different regions of Africa as different groups came into contact with each other at different times,” Scerri said. Though it’s not clear when most humans on the planet had these modern features, by about 12,000 years ago, when hunting and gathering gradually shifted to agriculture, archaic features such as an elongated head and large robust faces had all but disappeared in humans, Scerri said. (In any case, these archaic features, it should be noted, don’t correspond to how “culturally backward” a culture was, Scerri added.)
Ancient tools also buttress this theory, Scerri said.
For about two million years, hominins made “somewhat crude” handheld tools like hand axes or large cutting tools, Scerri said. About 300,000 years ago, “there’s really an explosion of different and specialized stone tool forms,” she added. These tools, that often used different bindings, different glues, and different designs, took hold in different places across the continent.
“I think there are just a handful of people who are really, really strong proponents of the idea that modern people came from one very restricted region,” said Becky Ackermann, a biological anthropologist at the University of Cape Town in South Africa who was not an author of the commentary. So “I don’t think the conclusions themselves were particularly novel.” [Top 10 Mysteries of the First Humans]
However, “it’s good to see [these ideas] being considered in kind of a holistic way,” she added.
“Who was arguing the contrary?” said Jon Marks, a professor of anthropology at University of North Carolina, Charlotte, who was also not part of the study. Though the findings didn’t come as a shock to Marks, he thinks they point to an important problem in the field — we might be using the wrong metaphors to describe evolution, namely, Darwin’s branching tree.
“What we’re seeing is a tree is not necessarily the most appropriate metaphor to apply to recent human ancestry,” Marks told Live Science. The more appropriate metaphors would be something that branches and then comes back together, rather than branches on a tree, he said.
These could include the roots of a tree, braided streams or capillary systems, he said.
Stone tools 2.1 million years old unearthed in China suggest human kin left Africa earlier than thought
NEW YORK – Stone tools recovered from an excavation in China suggest that our evolutionary forerunners trekked out of Africa earlier than we had thought.
Until now, the oldest evidence of human-like creatures outside Africa came from 1.8-million-year-old artifacts and skulls found in the Georgian town of Dmanisi. The new find pushes that back by at least 250,000 years. There have been other claims of even older fossil discoveries, the study authors said, but those remain unproven.
“There may be older evidence in places like India and Pakistan, but so far … the evidence is not strong enough to convince most of the research community,” said study co-author Robin Dennell of Exeter University in England. “With this type of claim, for an early human presence in a region, the evidence has to be absolutely water-tight and bomb-proof.”
“It’s absolutely a new story,” said archaeologist Michael Petraglia of the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in Jena, Germany, who did not participate in the study. “It means that early humans were getting out of Africa way earlier than we ever realized.”
That exit came long before our own species, Homo sapiens, even appeared. The researchers believe the tools were made by another member of the Homo evolutionary group. “Our discovery means that it is necessary now to reconsider the timing of when early humans left Africa,” Dennell said.
Hominins — humans and their extinct predecessors and relatives — are believed to have emerged in Africa more than 6 million years ago. They are thought to have left the continent in several migration waves starting about 2 million years ago.
The first migrants were likely members of the species Homo erectus (“upright man”) or Homo ergaster (“working man”) — extinct predecessors of Homo sapiens (“wise man”), which first emerged about 300,000 years ago in Africa.
The oldest known African fossil attributed to a member of the Homo family is a 2.8-million-year-old jawbone from Ethiopia.
The items found in China include several chipped rocks, fragments and hammer stones. The 96 artifacts — mainly flakes made with rudimentary hammers, and likely used for cutting meat and other food — were dug up from 17 layers of sediment in an area known as the Loess Plateau, north of the Qinling Mountains, which divide the north and south of China.
The youngest layer where tools were found was 1.26 million years old, and the oldest 2.12 million years, according to the study published in Wednesday’s journal Nature. The layers were used to date the tools, which are of a type known to have been manufactured by Homo species in Africa since at least 3.3 million years ago.
So far, no hominin bones have been found.
The team used paleomagnetism — minerals that show how the Earth’s magnetic field was oriented when they formed — to date the sediment layers, and so the artifacts found within them. The dates of geomagnetic reversals, when north and south flipped, are well known to scientists, and the movements of the magnetic poles and the continents can narrow down a date.
“We were very excited,” said Zhaoyu Zhu, a professor at the Guangzhou Institute of Geochemistry, who led the fieldwork. “One of my colleagues suddenly noticed a stone embedded in a steep outcrop. After a short while, more artifacts were found — one after another.”
The tools were distributed throughout layers of dirt, suggesting that our unidentified ancient relatives came back to the same site over and over, possibly following animals to hunt. Researchers also found bones of pigs and deer, but were not able to provide proof that the tools were used for hunting.
Some experts not involved in the research think that the findings need to be considered with caution. “I am skeptical,” said Geoffrey Pope, an anthropologist from William Paterson University in New Jersey. “I suspect this discovery will change very little.”
The problem, he said, is that sometimes nature can shape stones in a way that they look as if they were manufactured by hand. Scientists know, for example, that rocks smashed together in a stream can acquire sharp edges.
But Sonia Harmand, an archaeologist at Stony Brook University in New York who studies stone tools, disagreed.
“This could be, frankly, one of the most important (archaeological) sites in the world,” Harmand said.
Asia’s mysterious role in the early origins of humanity
Bizarre fossils from China are revealing our species’ Asian origins and rewriting the story of human evolution
By Kate Douglas
DECEMBER 1941. Japan has just entered the second world war. China, already fighting its neighbour, is in the firing line. At the Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Hu Chengzhi carefully packs two wooden crates with the world’s most precious anthropological artefacts. Peking Man – in reality some 200 fossilised teeth and bones, including six skulls – is to be shipped to the US for safekeeping. This is the last anyone ever sees of him.
At the time, the Peking Man remains were the oldest known fossils belonging to human ancestors. Their discovery in the 1920s and 30s caused a sensation, triggering declarations that the cradle of humanity had been found. But just a few decades later, all eyes had turned to Africa. A slew of discoveries there left little doubt that it was our true ancestral home. As far as human evolution was concerned, Asia was out of the picture.
Not any more. The last decade has seen the discovery of new Asian fossils, among others by Chinese palaeoanthropologists with a renewed interest in their heritage. As key moments in our past are rewritten, the spotlight is once more turning east.
Sometime in the next two weeks, US spaceflight startup Rocket Lab will attempt something it’s never tried before: a commercial launch of its Electron rocket. It will only be the Electron’s third flight and the first of what the company hopes will be monthly launches by the end of the year. The launch was scrubbed on Friday because of problems with a tracking dish. But check back in tomorrow… and the next day. Every day for the next 14 days, the company will attempt a launch within a four-hour window that starts at 8:30PM ET.
Okay, so a new rocket company is entering the commercial market, and will be launching satellites regularly. This is good. More competition means faster technological development and lowering prices.
This means that asteroid mining will become financially viable much sooner than if only the government bureaucracy was in charge of space exploration.
Once mining starts, the scramble for the stars begins.
Elon Musk’s SpaceX also just landed a landmark deal – with the US military.
SpaceX has won a $130 million contract to send a classified Air Force satellite to space on its monster Falcon Heavy rocket. The satellite, known as AFSPC-52, is scheduled to launch in 2020. SpaceX beat out the United Launch Alliance, the joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed Martin, which was angling to use its own heavy-lift Delta 4 rocket to send the military satellite to space.
One of the goals of pitting companies against each other for contracts like these is to reduce costs for the government. Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center Commander Lt. Gen. John Thompson said in a statement released on Thursday that awarding the launch to Space X “fits the mission of delivering resilient and affordable space capabilities to our Nation while maintaining assured access to space.” The average price tag for Delta 4 launches is around $350 million, according to SpaceNews, and NASA’s heavy-lift rocket hasn’t been built yet.
Musk’s Falcon Heavy, if he can make it work consistently, costs hundreds of millions less than Boeing and Lockheed Martin’s offering.
The military-industrial complex is so encrusted with corruption by now that they can’t hold their own in a field with a bunch of new competitors. These people are used to getting away with being late on deadlines and wildly over budget, with the assurance that a new war for Israel is always around the corner, ready to flood them with more money.
Well, things are changing.
Can the SPACE FORCE be our new shining light of virtue in this sea of degeneracy?
A few years back, Microsoft came out with their “Hololens” system, which was a headset that projected 3d images onto the environment around you, creating a sort of “mixed” reality, combining virtual objects with normal ones.
It was pretty sick, tbh.
But it was also like, several grand. So it was aimed mostly at professionals, rather than normal people.
However, it seems like Microsoft is actually working hard to improve the tech and bring it to a wider audience.
It was a little over a year ago, that I broke the news that Microsoft had stopped the development of HoloLens V2 and was pushing forward to V3. Since then, I have been asked about a million times for more information about the upcoming device but if you know where to look, the company is developing the hardware in broad daylight.
Yeah I mean, it was cool as a scifi sort of tech demo…
Based on documents I was able to view, Microsoft is still targeting a Q1 release of the next gen headset. Additionally, the company is referring to the project internally as Sydney.
The device, according to the documents, will be lighter, more comfortable to wear, and have significantly improved holographic displays. But most importantly, it will cost significantly less than the current version of the HoloLens.
In other words, it’ll be far more accessible to people, and thus will likely yield new types of applications.
All of this is the natural evolution for the second generation of a piece of hardware but the good news is that it’s still on track for a release early next year.
What I don’t know is if the Q1 date is for general availability or for a developer preview. I could see Microsoft seeding the newer higher-end devices to developers prior to the general release of the hardware but that is only speculation at this time.
Based on the documents I was able to view, Microsoft is approaching the MR/VR market as a must-win market. This is likely because they are on the sidelines of the smartphone segment and missing out on this generation of devices would inflict serious long-term ramifications for the company about being anything more than a cloud company.
It’s great that someone is working on this augmented reality stuff, since Google seems to have abandoned the idea along with their Google Glass fiasco.
It looked pretty stupid.
The main problem, aside from the fact that it was super expensive and looked dumb, was probably that people were uncomfortable being filmed constantly. This could be rectified simply by having a big red LED flashing when filming or taking pictures. Whatever.
They’re still working on augmented reality for phones, but that’s not quite the same thing.
So why am I so stocked on AR?
Basically, because it merges “reality” with the internet. And that’s very good for the Alt-Right. Because the internet is where we rule.
Augmented reality, combined with new advances in artificial intelligence, could be an incredible boon for us. Imagine if there were programs for these AR platforms that could, at a glance, pull up all sorts of “problematic” information on everyone you meet.
The title of this video may have you intrigued and I’m sure many of you have your doubts even before watching, but there are a number of researchers that believe they have enough evidence to push forward the idea that way back in antiquity, the Ancient Egyptians settled in Ireland. With limited, but growing archaeological evidence, as well as new interpretations of ancient Irish legends, etymological studies and DNA analysis of the ancient Irish, the claims may not be as impossible as you might first imagine.