Please excuse the fact that some of my articles have gotten shorter in the last couple of weeks. They have been written from inside the hospital and I just didn't have the available resources there to make them any longer. I am not the sick party, he is a close relative and the family and I have been spending the better part of each day visiting him.

When we get on the subject of strange, as pertains to things that either happen or are found, we begin to suspect that we don't really have the entire picture of our origins. Look at North America, for example. We are told by the experts that man came to this continent at a certain time and that is that, but is it the truth? Absolutely not. There are copper mines around the great lakes that are far older than the prescribed time for man settling here. So how do most scientists explain this? It is very simple, they just ignore the fact. If a fact like this can be ignored, what are we to think about the rest of history? I can tell you this, the victor creates the history. What I am saying is that the winning party in any war will bend history to his best interests. The same is true of archeological discoveries. Usually the person that makes the great find will give us the history and it just may be wrong. A good example of this is the history from World War I and World War II. It was written in such a way that you were either the good guys or the bad guys, with nothing in between. Now we know that this was mostly true, but not entirely. The facts that led up to the wars are hardly ever mentioned.

Scientists have never explained how human footprints hundreds of millions of years old appeared right next to dinosaur footprints. The particular one that I am thinking of was the footprint of someone wearing a sandal. Did we actually get along with some species of dinosaurs? Maybe we had the same relationship with them that man has with a horse. Here is the thing, the sandal print looked like any other sandal from ancient times, so the print probably belonged to a human that was similar to us. At least his foot was mostly the same. There are ancient rocks from a people known as the Nasca. They depict man and dinosaur together, something that science says is impossible. The stones are ancient and the people of that time had no way to know what dinosaurs were or even looked like, yet there they are painted on stones. How do you explain this? Very simple again, we just ignore it. Science is very good at ignoring things. No one wants to investigate these stones from tombs because they feel that they will be ridiculed. Maybe it is time to stop worrying about one's reputation and to start looking for our true history.

In the Pacific Northwest an ancient lava flow has covered much of the area with a 300 foot deep blanket. Scientists date the flow at 15,000,000 years ago. This is far in excess of when scientists claim man roamed the continent. As a matter of fact it is far in excess of man. Ouch, how could any evidence of man exist from then? Well get this, in 1889, in Idaho, under the blanket of lava something was discovered. Workers had been called in to drill a well. When they got to about 380 feet deep, something got caught in the pipe. Luckily the pipe had a diameter of 6 inches. They got it to the surface and all were astounded. They had brought up a pottery figure of a person. But this figure had been buried below lava that was at least 15,000,000 years old, how could this be? Was there a scientific investigation, did anyone try and date the object? No, it looks like it happened again. This object just didn't fit the picture of what scientists believed was the story of man, so it was forgotten and nothing was ever done with it. So many things have been found in strange places that would indicate they are far older than even the predicted age of man. Another example of this are tools that were found buried in ancient ground that was millions upon millions of years old in places this was before man was supposed to have existed.

Now here is an idea that would be completely laughed at, but just try it on for size. The current theory of the origin of man is that he migrated from Africa and spread all over the globe reaching North America sometime late in the immigration. What if man is a heck of a lot older and started out way before it was suspected, in a place like South or North America and migrated to Africa. There could have been a catastrophe and maybe only the African branch of man survived and it migrated all over the world again. Sounds crazy, I know and there is no proof for this, but it is only a "what if" scenario. I only proposed it to show that our entire history of early man might be completely wrong. We really don't look for correct history, we look for neat history. Neat history is the history that fits into what the current thinking is. The problem with this, is that the current thinking may not be right. There are an awful lot of loose ends around when we talk of early history and these ends seem to be able to unravel the entire current theory of the history of man.

Seeing things for the first time that are unexpected seem to be perfectly alright in other fields of science. In 1998 two scientists were examining ancient ice and found many different types of life forms with strange shapes that had never been seen before. " We've found some really bizarre things - things that we've never seen before," said Richard Hoover of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. These scientists were not afraid to tell the scientific community about their discovery. If scientists had discovered a doll buried in earth that was millions of years old, would they have been so eager to let everyone know? It doesn't seem so. This raises the question, how much of this stuff has been found that we don't know about? There could be a lot of items that are being kept secret because scientists don't want to hurt their careers.

Have you ever noticed how ancient buildings are built above or on other ancient buildings? I have often wondered if there are many ancient structures far under the ones that we know about? I am not saying that all ancient buildings are built this way or even the majority of them, but what I am saying is that maybe we should investigate these sites by looking deeper. If man really does have a much longer history on this planet of ours than we suspect, he may have had a reason for building where he did. Maybe the Romans built Rome where they did because of legends of other great cities being there and these legends were lost in time? Could it be that the site of Athens was picked because races like the Atlantians might have build there thousands of years before? I am just throwing these things out for thought. Are we really older than we are being led to believe? Scientists will say no, but if we look at all the strange evidence that has been found over the years we have to conclude that it is a possibility.