Blog

4.4-Million-Year-Old Ankle Bone Discovery Reveals New Clues to the Mystery of How Ancient Humans Moved and Evolved

Scientists from Washington University in St. Louis (WashU) studying a 4.4-million-year-old ankle bone fossil say the find represents “compelling evidence” to support the hypothesis that the earliest humans evolved from an ape-like creature in Africa.

According to a statement announcing the scientific team’s research, several aspects of the ancient bone have helped to “narrow the range of explanations for the origin of human lineage,” and move us closer to answering one of life’s greatest questions: where do we come from?

Researchers first discovered a nearly complete skeleton of Ardipithecus in 1994, and knew almost immediately it represented an early stage of human evolution. More analysis ultimately determined that the specimen, nicknamed Ardi, was one of the oldest skeletons ever found, dating to approximately 4.4 million years ago. For comparison, the WashU researchers note that Ardi is almost 2 million years older than the well-known Australopithecus skeleton ‘Lucy’ discovered in Africa in 1974.

Study leader Thomas (Cody) Prang, an assistant professor of biological anthropology in WashU’s school of Arts & Sciences, said the analysis of Ardi included several surprises, including the discovery that he walked upright, but still maintained a lot of Ape-like characteristics, such as a grasping foot.

“Apes, like chimpanzees and gorillas, have a big toe that’s divergent, which allows them to grip tree branches as part of a climbing lifestyle,” Prang explained. “Yet it also had features that align with our lineage. That makes Ardipithecus a true transitional species.”

During earlier analyses, scientists initially proposed that Arid probably did not move like African apes and was not a missing link between humans and an ancient ape-like ancestor. Instead, Prang’s team says those earlier works suggested Ardi demonstrated a “more generalized” form of locomotion that was not necessarily Ape-like. Prang’s team said this early conclusion led scientists to determine Ardi’s skeletal construction was “not similar to ape after all,” which came as a “big surprise” to the broader paleoanthropology community, who were still looking for an evolutionary missing link between humans and other primates.

“Based on their analysis, they concluded that living African apes—like chimpanzees and gorillas—are like dead ends or cul-de-sacs of evolution, rather than stages of human emergence,” Prang said. “Instead, they thought that Ardi provided evidence for a more generalized ancestor that wasn’t similar to chimps or gorillas.”

To conduct a new analysis that would either confirm the original determination that ARdi was not an evolutionary missing link, Prang teamed up with Matthew W. Tocheri at Lakehead University in Thunder Bay, Canada, Biren A. Patel at the University of Southern California, Scott A. Williams at New York University, and Caley M. Orr at the University of Colorado Anschutz.

The team’s initial analysis focused on comparing Ardi’s ankle bones to the ankle bones of chimpanzees and gorillas. This began with studying the large talus bone found in gorilla and chimpanzee ankles, which joins the foot with the tibia of the leg and the calcaneus (heel). This bone is critical, the team notes, because it offers insight into how early hominin species “transitioned” to bipedal (two-footed) locomotion.

When comparing the bone in Ardi with the same bone found in gorillas and chimpanzees, the research team found a surprising similarity. According to their statement, the comparison found that Ardi’s ankle bone “is the only one in the primate fossil record that shares similarities with African apes.”

Keep reading

Trump bet $40B on Milei, but what do Americans get out of it?

It has been a busy week for U.S. policy towards Argentina.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced Wednesday that the U.S. would be doubling the assistance it is marshaling for Argentina from $20 billion to $40 billion. The increase comes ahead of legislative elections on October 26 that will elect half the lower house and one-third of the upper house, and represents an increasingly strenuous effort in Washington to bolster Argentine President Javier Milei financially and politically.

Ironically, one reason for an even bigger bailout package might have been a comment by the White House itself. Heading into a meeting with President Donald Trump on Tuesday, an optimistic Milei is reported to have said “we will have dollars pouring out of our ears.” During the meeting, Trump burst that bubble, remarking that “if he loses, we’re not going to be generous with Argentina,” a remark that immediately hit markets.

A day later, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent tried to remedy the situation, saying that beyond the original amount the U.S. had committed to lend Argentina, the Trump administration was coordinating the delivery of another $20 billion for the country from banks and sovereign wealth funds. Bessent invoked an “economic Monroe Doctrine” and said the outcome of upcoming elections in Chile and Colombia depended on the fate of Milei’s presidency. He thus grounded the need for assistance in the possibility that electorates in those countries might follow the cue from Argentine voters despite their very different circumstances (as detailed below).

Milei’s first term ends formally in 2027, but he is under severe pressure from domestic politicians and international investors. Argentina was a darling of the markets following Milei’s election in 2023 as he pushed through radical reductions in the size of government by decree, arguing that it was the only way to deliver the country from a long history of high inflation and serial defaults.

However, in early September, his party received a drubbing from voters tired of austerity in the province of Buenos Aires, home to roughly 40% of the population. This hit Argentine bonds and led to a sharp depreciation of the Argentine peso. Local and foreign investors fled, worried that the results in the provincial election were a harbinger of worse to come in the congressional polls.

By the end of September, the U.S. had stepped in, offering Milei’s government a level of support practically unprecedented in recent history (and yet apparently still not enough). The Treasury offered an arrangement where Argentina could borrow dollars against pesos, hinted that it might buy the country’s debt, and later even purchased the country’s currency in foreign exchange markets.

While Mexico did receive ample support from the U.S. in 1995, when that country suffered its own devaluation shock, the U.S. Treasury did not actually buy Mexican pesos on that occasion, unlike its actions during the current intervention in Argentine markets. And the U.S. rescue efforts for Mexico were for a country that was a member of the North American Free Trade Agreement, already the U.S.’s third-largest trading partner (it is now the biggest), and supported a new president about to enter a six-year term after an election.

Keep reading

Company Takes Credit for UFOs over NJ, Raises More Questions

The swarms of unidentified aircraft over New Jersey late last year were classified tests approved by the military, according to a leak from an elite tech summit. A protected source told the New York Post how one contractor claimed responsibility for the mysterious flying objects, which began baffling Garden State residents in November of 2024. “You remember that big UFO scare in New Jersey last year? Well, that was us,” an employee of the contractor allegedly said.

The Army UAS and Launched Effects Summit is an exclusive gathering of the military’s top brass and the nation’s best private contractors. During the event, the unnamed contractor also demonstrated a manned aerial craft with a unique design that makes it difficult to detect from certain angles. This potentially explains why so many reported the New Jersey UFOs vanishing suddenly while zipping across the sky.

Although this alleged admission answers some questions, it raises several others, such as why the scale of the tests was so large, and why there was an utter lack of transparency that confused even the state’s top lawmakers and the FBI. The densely populated test area also has some wondering about the purpose of these exercises.

Keep reading

Will Trump really attack Venezuela?

It’s ironic that in the same week that President Donald Trump escalated the drug war in the Caribbean by unleashing the CIA against Nicolás Maduro’s regime in Venezuela, the Department of Justice won an indictment against former National Security Adviser John Bolton, the architect of the failed covert strategy to overthrow Maduro during the first Trump administration.

The one thing the two regime change operations have in common is Marco Rubio, who, as a senator, was a vociferous opponent of Maduro. Now, as Secretary of State and National Security Adviser, he’s the new architect of Trump’s Venezuela policy, having managed to cut short Richard Grenell’s attempt to negotiate a diplomatic deal with Maduro. Regime change is on the agenda once again, with gunboats in the Caribbean and the CIA on the ground. What could go wrong?

Donald Trump’s penchant for turning the metaphorical war on drugs into a real one by deploying the U.S. military dates back to his first administration, when he threatened to designate drug cartels as foreign terrorists and proposed launching missiles to blow up drugs labs in Mexico. During the recent presidential campaign, he declared, “The drug cartels are waging war on America—and it’s now time for America to wage war on the cartels.” Apparently, he meant it.

Back in office, he named six Mexican cartels, the Salvadoran gang MS-13, and the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua as foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs) and ordered the Pentagon to draw up plans for military action against them. Early on, White House officials seriously debated military strikes against cartel leaders and infrastructure inside Mexico, but decided that cooperation with the Mexican government would be more fruitful. Nevertheless, the unusual appointment of a veteran Special Forces military officer to head the Western Hemisphere Affairs office of the National Security Council signaled that Trump was still was serious about resorting to military force to wage the war on drugs.

The focus then shifted to Venezuela. The day before the New York Times broke the story about Pentagon planning for action against cartels, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that the U.S. government was offering a $50 million reward for information leadings to Maduro’s arrest, accusing him of the “use cocaine as a weapon to ‘flood’ the United States.” Trump claimed Maduro was directing Tren de Aragua in “undertaking hostile actions and conducting irregular warfare against the territory of the United States,” a claim that the intelligence community concluded was untrue, despite pressure from Trump political appointees to make the estimate conform to Trump’s claim. The two senior career intelligence officers who oversaw preparation of the estimate were summarily fired.

In August, the Trump administration deployed a naval task force to the Caribbean, including three guided-missile destroyers, an amphibious assault ship, a guided-missile cruiser, and a nuclear-powered attack submarine. The following month, U.S. forces began air strikes on vessels allegedly smuggling narcotics in international waters off the Venezuelan coast. When Democrats and some Republicans questioned the legality of summarily killing civilians who posed no immediate threat, Trump informed Congress that he had determined that the United States was in a state of “armed conflict” with unnamed “drug cartels,” whose drug trafficking constituted an attack on the United States. Therefore, traffickers were “unlawful combatants” subject to being killed on sight. Admiral Alvin Holsey, commander of U.S. Southern Command, resigned on Thursday, reportedly because of concerns over the extrajudicial killing of civilians in the air strikes.

Keep reading

El Paso family claims Border Patrol killed their dog during search, CBP reviewing incident

U.S. Customs and Border Protection says they are reviewing a “use of force incident” in El Paso, after a family says a Border Patrol agent unjustifiably shot and killed their dog.

According to CBP, the incident happened on Tuesday at around 7:15 a.m.

Without offering specifics, CBP said that during a migrant smuggling investigation in El Paso, a U.S. Border Patrol Agent “was involved in a use of force incident” involving a dog.

CBP stressed that it is taking the matter seriously and said it will provide more information when it becomes available, providing no mention of any migrants being found.

However, KFOX14/CBS4 spoke with a distraught family from the Upper Valley who claimed to have been the victims of this incident and said the agents went into the home and shot and killed their dog.

The father, who wished to remain anonymous, said Border Patrol agents in jeans and t-shirts showed up at his son’s home looking for migrants after receiving a tip.

The son answered the door and, while he permitted the agents to search his home, claiming he had nothing to hide, he asked if they could wait first while he put the family dog, Chop, a Rottweiler, away in the bathroom before they walked in, as the dog could be aggressive.

Border Patrol agents then asked the son if he could show them some identification.

According to the family, it is at this point that the son went to his pickup truck to retrieve his ID and a Border Patrol agent entered the home and, as a result, ended up shooting the dog.

The family stressed that the agents knew– the son had told them– that Chop was put in the bathroom for their safety and that the agents opened the door, let Chop out and shot him.

The family appeared upset and disgusted by the agent’s actions, saying that they were following orders and trying to be upstanding citizens, only for an agent to kill “a family member.”

Furthermore, the family said none of the Border Patrol agents helped the family, who desperately tried to render aid to the dog, which bled to death on the kitchen floor.

Keep reading

The Propaganda of American Schooling: A History of Lies and Indoctrinated Youth

“History is a set of lies agreed upon.” These were the words of the infamous French dictator and military strategist Napoleon Bonaparte.

It is a well-known concept that history is often written by the victor—that when two cultures or ideologies clash, the one that prevails and gains more power and influence is the one whose side of the story the record favors. Yet, despite this being a fairly common idiom, it is often overlooked just how profoundly it shapes our understanding of the present—or, more aptly, our misunderstandings. 

Many still fail to grasp that the history they cling to so fervently—often as a cornerstone of political or national identity—is a carefully curated fable, designed to secure their allegiance through misbelief. Likewise, few recognize how the formalized education system of the early 20th century was deliberately shaped by the robber barons of the predator class, particularly Rockefeller and Carnegie, not as institutions of higher learning, but as tools for controlling the public and molding the minds of the masses to serve their interests.

Reverend Frederick T. Gates, the business advisor to John D. Rockefeller Sr. who helped him found the General Education Board in 1902, elaborated their vision in his book The Country School Of Tomorrow —

“In our dream we have limitless resources, and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hand. The present educational conventions fade from our minds; and, unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive rural folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or of science. We are not to raise up among them authors, orators, poets, or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians. Nor will we cherish even the humbler ambition to raise up from among them lawyers, doctors, preachers, statesmen, of whom we now have ample supply.

For the task we set before ourselves is very simple as well as a very beautiful one, to train these people as we find them to a perfectly ideal life just where they are.”

In the context of modern American society, much of the mythology that makes up the concept of “American exceptionalism” is in fact a fabrication in line with this agenda, creating the docile public of Rockefeller’s vision.

Keep reading

How Letitia James’s Fake Marriage to Her Dad Sparked a Lifetime of Mortgage Fraud

How did Letitia James’s claim that she married her father in order to qualify for her first loan evolve into a lifetime of mortgage and bank fraud?

It all began in the spring of 1983, when a 24-year-old Letitia James and her father, Robert James, posing as “husband and wife,” took out a real-estate loan for $30,300 from Kadilac Funding Ltd. for the purchase of a two-story townhome in Queens. The loan document, signed by both, listed “ROBERT JAMES AND LETITIA JAMES, HIS WIFE” in three separate places. This was no clerical error.

At that time, young Letitia likely lacked sufficient income or credit to qualify for a mortgage as a single woman. The fraudulent claim of marriage to her father allowed her to obtain financing she otherwise couldn’t have, an act that meets the legal definition of mortgage fraud under state and federal statutes.

This deception set a precedent for her. Once Letitia discovered that falsifying personal information could deliver tangible financial rewards without consequence, the act of misrepresentation for loans became a lifelong habit.

Decades of mortgage misrepresentations followed. Even after she became the high-profile Attorney General of New York state on January 1, 2019, James continued the same behavior pattern.

In 2020, James purchased a property at 3121 Perone Avenue in Norfolk, Virginia, signing a document claiming it would be her primary or secondary residence, rather than a rental property, to secure a lower interest rate. That misrepresentation recently became part of the criminal indictment against her for mortgage and bank fraud, carrying a potential 30-year prison sentence.

In 2021, James applied for a $200,000 line of credit mortgage from Citizen’s Bank on her 5-unit apartment building in Brooklyn, but in mortgage documents James claimed it only had one apartment unit. Accordingly, James received a lower residential mortgage interest rate she was not entitled to, and avoided a higher commercial loan rate and much higher closing costs.

In 2023, James bought a home at 604 Sterling Avenue in Norfolk, Virginia. Per Sam Antar, Letitia qualified for the loan only after certifying in an updated application that it would be her “primary residence”, even though she lived in Brooklyn.

Keep reading

What a Nutcase! Creepy Virginia Gubernatorial Candidate Supports Mass Amnesty for Anyone in the World Who Makes it into the US

Democrat Abigail Spanberger openly wishes to destroy the United States and she’s not ashamed to admit it.

Creepy Virginia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Spanberger told supporters she supports open borders and mass amnesty for every person who wants to come to America.

Joe Biden brought in 20 million illegals through his open borders.

Abigail Spanberger: I certainly want to protect every person who might be interested in arriving at the United States, claiming asylum, working here, coming as a refugee, whatever the parameters or the need that begins their desire to move to our country.

This comes just days after she could not make herself condemn Americans who want to murder children of Republicans.

Abigail is a crackpot.

Abigail also said that it’s ‘horrifying’ that under the current administration that crossing the border illegally is considered a criminal act.

Perhaps that is because it is a violation of federal immigration law. What is it about this basic fact that Democrats cannot seem to grasp?

Keep reading

Epstein: Dirty Secrets Emerge From a Painful Book — and the Powerful Squirm

The Jeffrey Epstein story ebbs and flows in the national conversation, sometimes seeming a bit less worthy of our attention compared to other urgent matters, only to revive as hot stuff with new developments.

The latest in an endless series of things we need to know about is the posthumously published memoir of Virginia Roberts Giuffre, whose torment by Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell began in 2000 and ended in 2002. During that time, she was forced to perform unspeakable acts with the two of them, and others — she said she was “passed around like a platter of fruit.”

To get her to comply and never reveal these horrors, all Epstein had to do was let her know he knew where her little brother went to school. (And he showed her a photo proving it.)

I find this claim believable because someone I know recounted a story from one of his attorneys in a business-related lawsuit against Epstein. He described how during a phone conversation, Epstein mentioned having seen the attorney’s children crossing the street, and warned him to be extra careful so nothing would happen to them.

Back to Giuffre’’s claims: Epstein also bragged that he “owned the Palm Beach police department.” (Manipulating Giuffre was easy: At the age of seven, she had already been molested by a family friend.) Giuffre sued Maxwell and Epstein and became an advocate for other survivors. She committed suicide in April, at the age of 41.

Nobody’s Girl: A Memoir of Surviving Abuse and Fighting for Justice seems to be mentioned all over the place — The New York Times, The Washington Post, Vanity Fair, PBS, CBS, etc. — and it has got to be one of Donald Trump’s worst nightmares, assuming he can even fall asleep.

Because it’s bound to make more and more people demand to see the Epstein files. And to see just how he — Trump — is mentioned.

From the grave, Giuffre powerfully challenges the idea that all those famous people hanging out with Epstein had no inkling what he was up to:

Don’t be fooled by those in Epstein’s circle who say they didn’t know what he was doing. Epstein not only didn’t hide what was happening, he took a certain glee in making people watch. And people did watch — scientists, fundraisers from the Ivy League and other heralded institutions, titans of industry. They watched and they didn’t care.

And this description from on what she had to put up with, and from what sort of men:

[C]hoking, beating and bloodying from a former prime minister, whom she refused to name because “I fear that this man will seek to hurt me if I say his name here.”

As you probably already know, she named, and sued, Prince Andrew. (Note: Giuffre observed no encounters with Donald Trump, but others say they have.)

Related: How Epstein Got Rich: Clue Buried in Lawsuit? – WhoWhatWhy

Whether you think the Jeffrey Epstein story matters or not, the Republicans certainly think it does.

Their most recent effort, in a long series of efforts, to block release of the government’s files on the matter is to indefinitely avoid seating the newest member of the US House, Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ). That’s because she represents the final discharge petition signature needed to force a House vote on releasing those records.

The Grijalva stunt involves House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) claiming that, hey, there’s no reason for the delay and, um, I gotta go.

Keep reading

Children Beat and STAB Trump Effigy as Unhinged Leftists Cheer and Laugh in Disturbing “No Kings Day” Protest Scene

Far-left protesters across America marked their so-called “No Kings Day” with grotesque anti-Trump demonstrations, including children violently attacking effigies of the president as adults cheered and laughed.

What was billed as a ‘pro-democracy protest’ quickly devolved into scenes of pure derangement and moral decay.

The most sickening scene came out of Broadview, Illinois, where a video captured by Mike Drop News shows a masked child stabbing an effigy of President Trump with a stick as adults stand nearby watching and laughing.

The effigy, dressed in a suit and red tie, hung limp as the child repeatedly plunged the stick into its chest.

The event, marketed as a peaceful protest against “authoritarianism,” has instead exposed the violent, cult-like tendencies of the anti-Trump Left. Encouraging children to act out violence against a political figure is not activism, it’s indoctrination.

Four months ago, the same situation happened. In Asheville, North Carolina, a young boy was seen hurling a water balloon at a cardboard cutout of President Trump during the “No Kings Day” protest.

Keep reading