New Scientist Laments Cheddar Man Hoax Admission Was 'Seized Upon by Alt-Right Activists'Chris Menahan
Mar. 07, 2018
Christine Ford's 'Too Afraid to Fly to DC' But She Plotted Move to New Zealand After 2016 Election & Attended U. Of Hawaii
BOMBSHELL: Christine Blasey Ford's 'Lifelong Friend' Has 'No Recollection' Of Attending Alleged 'Party' With Kavanaugh
Reporter: Source Says 'Team Working to Confirm Kavanaugh is Sticking by Him,' Confident Piling On Allegations Will Backfire
Deborah Ramirez 'Recovers Drunken Memories' That Kavanaugh 'Thrust' His Junk At Her 35 Yrs Ago
Christine Blasey Ford Signed Letter Attacking Trump's Border Policy, Donated to Dems, Wore 'Brain' Pussy Hat
New Scientist reluctantly admitted that there's no solid evidence "Cheddar man" was dark-skinned in an article on February 21st.
Dozens of news outlets reported as fact that "Cheddar man," a skeleton discovered in 1903 in south-west England which scientists believe is some 10,000 years old, had "dark to black skin" according to a new analysis of his DNA.
That turned out to be false.
"The idea that there are really only about 15 genes underlying skin pigmentation isn't correct," Brenna Henn of Stony Brook University told New Scientist in February.
"It now seems likely that many other genes affect skin colour," New Scientist admitted. "We don't know how."
The entire Western media ignored their follow-up story debunking the claims, with the sole exception being The Daily Mail.
Nonetheless, last week on Feb. 28, New Scientist lamented that their story got widespread coverage on social media (even though they hid it behind a paywall).
From New Scientist:
YES, you’ve seen him somewhere before. This is Cheddar Man, the oldest known “modern” Briton, and that his 10,000-year-old DNA recently revealed that he was dark-skinned. You may also recall that the research was done for a TV documentary, announced via a press release and reported by many news outlets, including us.That's it. They provided no evidence to back up their claims.
Reporting on the conclusions of the scientists they interviewed is "blatant and hysterical nonsense" and "fake news" and anyone who disagrees is "alt-right."
If this wasn't propaganda, why hasn't a single news organization retracted their false stories? Not one outlet, including the New Scientist themselves, have issued a formal retraction.
New Scientist's original article reporting the claims as fact is still up to this day.
Rather than admit they were wrong and the science was junk, New Scientist is still trying to claim the science "might" be right.
As their headline from Feb. 21 said, "Ancient ‘dark-skinned’ Briton Cheddar Man find may not be true."
"Maybe, maybe not," their sub-headline said.
"Maybe, possibly, who the hell knows" is not science.
As I've said before, science in the 21st century revolves entirely around hurt feelings. If something causes protected groups to feel hurt feelings, then it's to be scrapped and derided as "blatant and hysterical nonsense from the alt-right."
Well, at least that's the case for science in the West. In China, they don't give a damn and are working feverishly towards bio-engineering superhumans.
We could easily lose our place on top of the world due to the left's hysterical nonsense.
Follow InformationLiberation on Twitter, Facebook and Gab.