Sun 11/6 Oakland Raiders at Oakland (4-3) W 38 – 24 . Oakland ended the season 8-8

Sun 11/13 Kansas City Chiefs at Kansas City (4-4) W 17 – 10. Kansas City ended the season 7-9

Thu 11/17 New York Jets NY Jets (5-4) W 17 – 13. New York ended the season 8-8.

Sun 11/27 San Diego Chargers at San Diego (4-6) W 16 – 13. San Diego ended the season 8-8

Sun 12/4 Minnesota Vikings at Minnesota (2-9) W 35 – 32. Minnesota ended the season 3-13

Sun 12/11 Chicago Bears Chicago (7-5) W 13 – 10. Chicago ended the season 8-8

Obviously beating Minnesota (3-13) by three points cannot be considered a great or even a particularly game. That means that Tebow made his reputation on five wins against five average teams (four 8-8 teams and one 7-9). Tebow scored 17, 16, 13 and 10 points in four of these games. Clearly, the wins in these games did not result from Tebow and the offense scoring, but from the defense playing very good games.

The fact that Tebow scored most of his points in the last quarter and won comebacks doesn’t matter. In football, it doesn’t matter which quarter you score your points in, its the cumulative amount that counts. Scoring 17,16, 13 and 10 points against average teams is not particularly good.
This leaves us with only one game where we cannot say the Bronco defense won or they were playing an extremely weak team. That was the 38-24 victory over the Oakland Raiders on November 6. This game featured two long touchdown runners by Willis McGahee of 60 and 24 yards. He ended up with 164 yards. E. Royal returned a punt 85 yards which really put the game away for Denver in the late fourth quarter.

In 2010, the best running back for Denver was Knowshon Moreno who ran for 779 yards, 24th best in the league. Willis McGahee rushed for 1199 years in 2011, for 9th best in the league. Even in the one regular season game where Tebow shined, McGahee has to be given equal credit for a great game. In the same way, in the one post season game where Tebow shined, Demaryius Thomas caught four passes for 204 yards, and should be given equal credit for the victory.

It seems pretty obvious that Tim Tebow was not the reason for Denver improving last year and making the play-offs. It was an improved defense, plus the acquisition of Willis McGahee, who had a great season.

Tebow should have given more credit for his team’s victories to the people responsible, Willis McGahee and the Denver Defense.

The sports media gave Tebow the credit and Tebow gave God the credit. They both misled the public.

Next season should be very interesting. Expectations will be higher. Nobody thinks that Denver is a bad team any more. If he doesn’t improve on this season’s record, he will be seen as a failure. This would not be good for himself or the ideals he claims to represent.

The quality of the opponents that Orton played against while quarterback was quite different than the quality of the opponents that Tebow played against. Three out of the first five teams Denver played had winning records and the other two were even by the end of the year. Tebow only played against 2 teams with winning records, 5 teams with even records, and 4 teams with losing records. Thus, playing against teams with winning records, Orton – 60%, Tebow – 18% of the time, playing against teams with losing records, Orton 0%, Tebow 34% of the time. Playing against easier teams, Tebow was bound to look better. The tougher opponents that Orton faced early created the optical illusion that Tebow was the better quarterback.

To see this more clearly, we have to examine the games that Orton started and then examine the games that Tebow started.

Orton lost a close opening game to Oakland (8-8) and won a game against Cincinnati (9-7). He lost another close game against Tennessee (9-7) the third week of the season. Orton could easily have been 3-0 to start to the year.

The loss to Green Bay (15-1) in week four would certainly have happened with any quarterback. Orton was removed at half time in the fifth game, down 20-10. We can’t know if he would have come back to win the game in the second half. We know that Tebow didn’t win the game in the second half. Denver ended up losing 24-29.

In five games against three teams with winning records and two teams with even records, Orton averaged 20 points. There is no reason to believe that he would not have continued to average at least that much against teams with even and losing records.

Tebow beat Miami on Oct 23, 18-15. Miami was a 6-10 team. Orton probably would have scored at least 20 points and beaten them. Detroit was a 10-6 team, so either quarterback would have lost that game. Denver faced Oakland and beat them 38-24 the following week. Orton lost to them 20-23 the first week of the season, but it is probable, Orton could have topped their 24 points this time around. If we assume, he would have maintained his 20 point average, Orton would have won the games against Kansas City (17-10), the Jets (17-13) and San Diego (16-13). The game the following week against Minnesota (3-13) would also have likely gone to Denver, which they won by 35-32. It is hard to imagine Orton not scoring at least 20 points against the Chicago Bears and beating them by more than 13-10 on Dec 11.

Given the number of points that Orton scored against superior teams in his first five games, it is unlikely he would have scored less or lost any of the seven games that Tibow won. Since Orton beat a superior team playing for Kansas City, he would have certainly won the final game of the season too. Based on his play in the first five games of the season, it seems likely that Orton would have ended up with a 9-7 record with Denver.

Denver was a better team than their 1-4 record indicated after the first five games. They had only an average offense, but a very good defense. It is not hard to see that Denver made a mistake by trading him and keeping Tibow.

The quarterback ratings back this up. Orton had ratings of 87.5 with Denver in 2011 and 75.7 in 2011. He had a QB rating of 81.1 with Kansas City in 2011. Tebow’s QB rating was 72.9, facing much easier competition.

While the outcome of the games would have been the same under Orton, there would have been differences. It is likely that Denver would have easily won these games and not have had to require last quarter comebacks. Tebow’s miracle comebacks were the results of a good team that should have won easily these games, but had to squeak by in the last minute due to a bad quarterback.

GAME                                    OPPOSING TEAM FINAL RECORD

Games with Orton as QB

Mon 9/12 Oakland Raiders Oakland (0-0) L 20 – 23                         8-8

Sun 9/18 Cincinnati Bengals Cincinnati (1-0) W 24 – 22                   9-7

Sun 9/25 Tennessee Titans at Tennessee (1-1) L 14 – 17                    9-7

Sun 10/2 Green Bay Packers at Green Bay (3-0) L 23 – 49                15-1

Game with Orton as QB in first half, Tibow as QB in second half

Sun 10/9 San Diego Chargers San Diego (3-1) L 24 – 29                   8-8

Games with Tibow as QB

Sun 10/23 Miami Dolphins at Miami (0-5) W 18 – 15                        6-10

Sun 10/30 Detroit Lions Detroit (5-2) L 10 – 45                                10-6

Sun 11/6 Oakland Raiders at Oakland (4-3) W 38 – 24                     8-8

Sun 11/13 Kansas City Chiefs at Kansas City (4-4) W 17 – 10          8-8

Thu 11/17 New York Jets NY Jets (5-4) W 17 – 13                           8-8

Sun 11/27 San Diego Chargers at San Diego (4-6) W 16 – 13           8-8

Sun 12/4 Minnesota Vikings at Minnesota (2-9) W 35 – 32               3-13

Sun 12/11 Chicago Bears Chicago (7-5) W 13 – 10                            8-8

Sun 12/18 New England Patriots New England (10-3) L 23 – 41      13-3

Sat 12/24 Buffalo Bills at Buffalo (5-9) L 14 – 40                             6-10

Sun 1/1 Kansas City Chiefs Kansas City (6-9) L 3 – 7                       7-9

Kyle Orton 1-3, against:

50/50 teams, 0-1, lost by 3 points

Winning teams, 1-2, lost one game by 3, 26  points

Tibow 7-4, against:

Winning teams 0-2, lost by 35, 18 points

50/50 teams 5-0, won by 14, 7, 4, 3, 3,  points

Losing teams 2-2, won by 3, 3 points, lost by 26, 4

We have hitherto been concerned with investigating the manner in which our dreams represent the relations between the dream- thoughts, but we have often extended our inquiry to the further question as to what alterations the dream-material itself undergoes for the purposes of dream-formation. We now know that the dream-material, after being stripped of a great many of its relations, is subjected to compression, while at the same time displacements of the intensity of its elements enforce a psychic transvaluation of this material. The displacements which we have considered were shown to be substitutions of one particular idea for another, in some way related to the original by its associations, and the displacements were made to facilitate the condensation, inasmuch as in this manner, instead of two elements, a common mean between them found its way into the dream. So far, no mention has been made of any other kind of displacement. But we learn from the analyses that displacement of another kind does occur, and that it manifests itself in an exchange of the verbal expression for the thought in question. In both cases we are dealing with a displacement along a chain of associations, but the same process takes place in different psychic spheres, and the result of this displacement in the one case is that one element is replaced by another, while in the other case an element exchanges its verbal shape for another… Sigmund Freud, The Interpretation of Dreams, Chapter 6, Part 2D. The Regard for Representability

We may see Christianity as the egotistical transvaluation of ancient Greco-Roman mythology into Jewish monotheism. We may analyze the New Testament and other early Christian text as the artistic form of the “dream-work” (to use Freud’s term) that accomplishes or seeks to accomplish this task. The transformation of the Hermes’ birth narrative into the Jesus birth narrative is a good example of this process.

If a narrative has a number of parallel elements with an earlier narrative, it may indicate that the earlier narrative is a source for the later narrative. If these elements are too unique or unusual to be coincidental, we are justified in seeing a source-copy relationship. There are a number of elements in the Jesus birth narrative that match elements in the Hermes birth narrative. These elements may be unique and unusual enough to insure that a source-copy relationship exists. The main unique elements are 1) Extreme similarity of mothers’ names, 2) Impregnation by highest deity, 3) Birth in a cave, 4) Association with cattle feeding, 5) Crib Transformation, 6) Repeated mention of swaddling clothes, 7) an Omen backs up a pronouncement, 8) Distinguished visitors bring gifts, 9) Sacrifice of exactly two living creatures. 10) Shepherds and Gods.

While each of these similarities can be deemed coincidental, the appearance of them all in the short birth narrative of Jesus suggests a deliberate pattern of development. We can examine each of these elements individually.

1) The mother of Hermes is named Maia. Jesus’ mother is named Maria. In Greek, Μαῖα, looks very much like Μαρια. It is possible that the coincidental similarity in the two names suggested to the early Christian writers that the Hermes material was appropriate for describing the birth of the sons of both Maia and Maria.

2) Zeus, the chief God of the Greeks impregnates Maia and she gives birth to a son, The Hebrew God (or Most high God) impregnates Mary and she gives birth to a son.

3) Maia and Mary give birth in a cave. (from Pseudo-Apollorus, Bibliotheca 3.112, “The oldest daughter Maia, after her intercourse with Zeus, bore Hermes in a cave on Kyllene (Cyllene).” (from Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 78,) “But when the Child was born in Bethlehem, since Joseph could not find a lodging in that village, he took up his quarters in a certain cave near the village; and while they were there Mary brought forth the Christ.” It was generally recognized by Christians in the first five centuries, including church fathers like Justin Martyr, Origen, and Jerome, and the Emperor Constantine and his devout mother, Helena, that Jesus was born in a cave.

5)  Crib transformation. In both tales, the crib of the new-born God is changed from an object with a different purpose. Note this from Pseudo-Apollodorus, Bibliotheca 3. 112 :
“The oldest daughter Maia, after her intercourse with Zeus, bore Hermes in a cave on Kyllene (Cyllene). Though he was laid out in swaddling-clothes with her winnowing basket for a cradle,” A “winnowing basket” separated grain from chaff. Wikipedia notes:

 The winnowing-fan (λίκνον [líknon], also meaning a “cradle”) featured in the rites accorded Dionysus and in the Eleusinian Mysteries: “it was a simple agricultural implement taken over and mysticised by the religion of Dionysus,” Jane Ellen Harrison remarked.Dionysus Liknites (“Dionysus of the winnowing fan”) was wakened by the Dionysian women, in this instance called Thyiades, in a cave on Parnassus high above Delphi; the winnowing-fan links the god connected with the mystery religions to the agricultural cycle, but mortal Greek babies too were laid in a winnowing-fan

The writers of the Jesus birth story seem to have combined the two ideas in the original Hermes birth story of cattle feeding and the idea of creative cradle-making and come up with the idea of Mary making a manger into a cradle. Freud talks about this kind of combining two ideas into one in his “Interpretation of Dreams” and calls it “condensation.” It is also frequently found in the arts: films, novels, paintings, and poems.

6) Both birth narratives emphasize that the new born baby gets wrapped in “swaddling clothes.” From Philostratus the Elder, Imagines 1. 26 (trans. Fairbanks) (Greek rhetorician C3rd A.D.):

“[Ostensibly a description of an ancient Greek painting at Neapolis (Naples):] Birth of Hermes. The mere babe still in swaddling clothes, the one who is driving the cattle into the cleft of the earth, who furthermore is stealing Apollon’s weapons–this is Hermes. Very delightful are the thefts of the god; for the story is that Hermes, when Maia bore him, loved thievery and was skilled in it, though it was by no means through poverty that the god did such things, but out of pure delight and in a spirit of fun. If you wish to follow his course step by step, see how the painting depicts it. He is born on the crest of Olympos, at the very top, the abode of the gods. There, as Homer says, one feels no rain and hears no wind, nor is it ever beaten by snow, it is so high; but it is absolutely divine and free from the ills that pertain to the mountains which belong to men. There the Horai (Seasons) care for Hermes at his birth. The painter has depicted these also, each according to her time, and they wrap him in swaddling clothes, sprinkling over him the most beautiful flowers, that he may have swaddling clothes not without distinction. While they turn to [Maia] the mother of Hermes lying on her couch of travail, he slips out of his swaddling clothes and begins to walk at once and descends from Olympos. The mountain rejoices in him–for its smile is like that of a man–and you are to assume that Olympos rejoices because Hermes was born there.
Now what of the theft? Cattle grazing on the foothills of Olympos, yonder cattle with golden horns and whiter than snow–for they are sacred to Apollon–he leads over a winding course into a cleft of the earth, not that they may perish, but that they may disappear for one day, until their loss vexes Apollon; and then he, as though he had had no part in the affair, slips back into his swaddling clothes.

Compare to Luke 2.7-12:

            And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. 8And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. 9And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. 10And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. 11For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. 12And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

7) In both stories a sign or omen backs up a pronouncement. Apollo, while looking for his cattle approaches an old man walking a beast (a shepherd?).  He asks him if he saw who stole his cattle. The man tells him a child stole his cattle. Apollo sees a long-winged bird that proves the truth of the report of the old man. In Luke, a God messenger (angel) approaches shepherds at night to tell them who shall save them.  The report by the angel of a savior born is proved by the shepherds seeing a child in swaddling clothes in a manger. Thus, in Hermes:

Now Eos Erigeneia (the Dawn) was rising from deep-flowing Okeanos, bringing light to men, when Apollon, as he went, came to Onkhestos, the lovely grove and sacred place of the loud-roaring Holder of the Earth [Poseidon]. There he found an old man grazing his beast along the pathway from his court-yard fence,..

Then the old man answered him and said: ‘My son, it is hard to tell all that one’s eyes see; for many wayfarers pass to and fro this way, some bent on much evil, and some on good: it is difficult to know each one. However, I was digging about my plot of vineyard all day long until the sun went down, and I thought, good sir, but I do not know for certain, that I marked a child, whoever the child was, that followed long-horned cattle–an infant who had a staff and kept walking from side to side: he was driving them backwards way, with their heads toward him.’
So said the old man. And when Apollon heard this report, he went yet more quickly on his way, and presently, seeing a long-winged bird, he knew at once by that omen that thief was the child of Zeus Kronion.

While in Luke:

12And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger…the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us. 16And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger. 17And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child.

 Signs and omens are pretty common to both Greek and Hebrew mythology. It is however interesting that in the Hermes story, a winged creature (long-winged bird) is the sign that identifies the new born child as the principle character, while in the Jesus story, the winged creature (angel) identifies the new born child as the sign of the principle character.

8) Distinguished visitors give gifts to the child. The Horai (Seasons) give flowers to Hermes. Magi bring gold, frankincense and myrrh to Jesus.  Philostratus the Elder, Imagines 1. 26 (trans. Fairbanks), “There the Horai (Seasons) care for Hermes at his birth. The painter has depicted these also, each according to her time, and they wrap him in swaddling clothes, sprinkling over him the most beautiful flowers, that he may have swaddling clothes not without distinction.” In the Jesus birth story, it is the Magi who brings gifts.

9) Both tales talk about the sacrifice of precisely two living creatures. In Hermes two cows, in Luke, two turtle doves. Pseudo-Apollodorus, Bibliotheca 3. 112 – 115 (trans. Aldrich), “…he hid them in a grotto, except for two which he sacrificed.” In Luke, “22And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; 23(As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;) 24And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.”

10) Shepherds and Gods. In the Homeric Hymn, Hermes is called a Shepherd, “So Hermes the shepherd (oiopolos) and Leto’s glorious son kept stubbornly disputing each article of their quarrel…” He was known as the God of Shepherds, as was Apollo and Hermes’ son, Pan. In the Jesus Myth, the birth of Jesus is first announced to Shepherds who seek him out. It makes sense that the birth of the Shepherd God, Hermes, would first be announced to Shepherds. King David was also a shepherd. We may see that having the Shepherds seek out Jesus is a way of condensing the ideas of Jesus being a God/son of Zeus like Hermes and a Jewish King like David. It would appeal to both Jews and Greco-Romans.

These parallels, I believe, are strong enough to suggest a source-copy parallel between the two birth narratives. Naturally one has to assume that the Jesus narratives went through many changes for many reasons, bringing it further and further away from its source in Greek Mythology describing the birth of Hermes.

(Note: All Hermes birth narrative quotes are from the website http://www.theoi.com/Olympios/HermesMyths.html)

We should remember that Tebow is 7 and 2, but only one of those seven wins came against a team with a winning record. He beat the Jets (8-6) 17-13. The other six wins came against three teams that are 7-7 and three teams with losing records (Miami (5-9), Kansas City (6-8), Minnesota (2-12).. In the other two games against teams with winning records, Detroit (9-5) and New England (11-3), Tebow lost 45-10 and 41-23.
Conclusion ­, against average and losing teams, the Denver Broncos are able to win by a slight margin, because they are slightly better than average. When faced with actually good teams, they show that they are only very slightly better than average.

Tim Tebow has started in 9 games. The defense of those 9 teams he faced are ranked 5, 11, 14, 19, 21, 22, 23, 29 and 32. The average ranking on defense is 19.5 out of 32 teams. Thus he was facing defenses slightly worse than average.
Those nine teams averaged giving up 23.2 points per game this season. In the nine games he played against them, Tebow and the Broncos averaged 20.7 points. In other words he scored about 10% less than the average scored against them.
Conclusion­, against less than average defensive teams, he scored a less than average number of points.
Grand conclusion­: Tim Tebow’s prowess as a quarterbac­k is hype. The Broncos are a slightly better than average team with a slightly worse than average quarterbac­k.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows - Box Office not as Good as First Movie. So what?

“Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows” is being called a flop because it opened with $40 million, while the previous movie made $64 million its first weekend.

The comparison of sequels with their hit predecessors is misleading. The majority of sequels do not surpass the original. This year alone, in the United States, 20 movies failed to match their prequels. “Big Mamma,” “Diary of a Wimpy Kid,” “Scream 4,” “Tyler Perry’s Madea,” “Hoodwinked Too,” “Pirates of the Carribean,” “Kung Fu Panda 2,” “Hangover 2,” ” Xmen First Class,” “Cars 2″ “Transformers 3″ “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” “Destination 5″ “Spy Kids 4″ “Footloose,” “The Thing,” “Paranormal Activity 3″ “Harold and Kumar 3D” “Twilight: Breaking Dawn” and “Happy Feet Too,” failed to match their immediate predecessor incarnations. Only “Fast Five,” “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows 2″ outdid their predecessors. Still, at least 8 of the 20 lower grossing sequels were smash hits and 4 more will turn a solid profit. While the odds of a sequel outdoing an earlier smash hit were only around 10% this year, the odds of making money on a sequel were better than 60% and nearly 50% at having a huge hit. Sherlock Holmes 2 and Mission Impossible 4 will probably be smash hits and “Alvin and the Chipmunks 3″ will probably break even.
The real headline should be that sequels to hit movies continue to be the best and safest investments movie producers can make.

Even the other headline that movie profits are way down because of the sequel mania is misleading.
Last year, December 17-19, “Tron Legacy” opened to $44 million and “Yogi Bear” to $16 million. The top two movies doing $40 million and $23 million is not bad at all and represents a 5% increase over last year. Tron Legacy went on to do $172 million in the United States and $400 million worldwide. Yogi Bear did $100 million in the U.S. and $201 million worldwide. Sherlock Holmes should finish around $175 million in the U.S. and the Chipmunks should finish slightly over $100 million (U.S.). While the movies won’t be smash hits like their predecessors, both should provide solid profits.
Next week, with Adventures of Tintin, Girl with the Dragon Tatoo opening, and Mission Impossible IV going wide, the top five films could hit $120 million, well ahead of the $95 million top 5 in 2010.

A Cain Campaign Ad Showing His Campaign Manager Smoking and Asking People to Support Cain. The not so subtle subliminal message was that Cain endorses smoking despite his cancer treatment.

Cain likes to portray his survival from Cancer as a miracle from God. God saved him from cancer so he could run for the presidency. Besides using his cancer to declare himself the New Moses, Cain uses it to attack President Obama’s health care reforms and all government aided health care. This article suggests that Cain’s survival from his cancer was pretty much the norm today and he misinforms when he uses it to proclaim himself holy and to praise the health care system in America.

Cain dramatically Almost Breaks Down Thinking About his Inauguration as President and His Wife holding a Bible

This is Cain’s advice from his book Speak as a Leader: Develop the Better Speaker in You:

* expect the unexpected and be prepared to remain calm and professional.
* There is no such thing as off the record.
* Think sound bites and plan some ahead of time if you know the topic to be discussed.
* Say it over and over.

Cain has choked up and held back tears at least three times in two days. Each of “the choking ups” have been in regard to his wife and family.

1. WMUR New Hampshire Interview:

2012 Republican firebrand Herman Cain exposed his vulnerable side yesterday, nearly breaking down into tears during an interview with the New Hampshire radio station WMUR.

When asked how he would feel on his hypothetical inauguration day, Cain was visibly moved, choking up and replying: “I almost can’t say it. Holding the Bible when I’m sworn in. It’s emotional.”

It is a surprising emotional outburst for the typically brash candidate, who tends to stick to anger and/or enthusiasm on the campaign train, even in the face of damning sexual harassment allegations and harsh criticism over his gaffes/general lack of experience.

Cain Beaming on a Recent Television Commercial

Herman Cain’s “Beamer program” is a small detail that he includes in his autobiographical material to show what a brilliant manager he is. This article examines Cain’s Beamer program and concludes that it did not exist. Cain was at best enforcing the normally degrading policies of fast food restaurants towards their employees in a strict and harmful way. This article suggests that Cain made up the Beamer program as a pseudo-parable to further Cain’s self created myth that he is a great businessman. At the same time, the Beamer program tall tale is meant to cover up the truth that Cain’s rise in the Burger King corporation was not due to anything he did, but to Jessie Jackson’s PUSH organization threatening a consumer boycott and forcing Burger King to institute an affirmative action program to promote black managers in 1982-1983.

Jesus and Nessie

More Evidence for the Lock Ness Monster Than Jesus Christ

 With what greediness are the miraculous accounts of travellers received, their descriptions of sea and land monsters, their relations of wonderful adventures, strange men, and uncouth manners? But if the spirit of religion join itself to the love of wonder, there is an end of common sense; and human testimony, in these circumstances, loses all pretensions to authority. A religionist may be an enthusiast, and imagine he sees what has no reality: he may know his narrative to be false, and yet persevere in it, with the best intentions in the world, for the sake of promoting so holy a cause: or even where this delusion has not place, vanity, excited by so strong a temptation, operates on him more powerfully than on the rest of mankind in any other circumstances; and self-interest with equal force.        

                                                    David Hume  on “Miracles”

This article suggests that the evidence for the existence of Nessie, the Loch Ness Monster, is much better than any evidence for the existence of Jesus the lead character in the New Testament gospels. It further suggests that in both cases a deliberate deception which answered a contradictory problem was responsible for the development and spread of the myth. In the case of Nessie, it was the fake “Surgeon’s Photograph” that resolved the contradiction between a land and sea monter that grounded the myth. In the case of Jesus Christ, it was the writing of a fake gospel in the mid-Second century that resolved the contradiction between the idea that the Hebrew God would send a heavenly army led by the angel Joshua/Jesus of Nun (see book of Revelation) and the idea that God had abandoned the Jews because of their mis/interpretation of the Mosaic laws.

The evidence for Nessie, the Loch Ness Monster:

Eyewitness accounts: At least 110 dating back to Saint Columbia in the sixth century. In 1933 alone, 25 people claimed to have seen him. Many of the witnesses were outstanding and upright citizens.

Photographs – dozens
film and videos – 27 dating from 1933 to 1992.
sonar encounters – 16 dating back from 1954 to 1972.
Histories – dozens of contemporary book and magazine articles.
100′s of mentions in contemporary literature.

The Surgeon's Photo, 1934

According to a well researched aricle by H.H. Bauer in 1988, (Society and Scientific Anomalies, Common Knowledge About the Loch Ness Monster) “Nessie has, in fact become the prototype and stereotype of the aquatic monster.”

In the same way, the gospel’s Jesus character has become the prototype and stereotype of the Holy man-Prophet.

The evidence for Jesus the Christ:
Eyewitnesses – 0
Photographs – 0
film and videos – 0
sonar – 0
Histories – 0 contemporary, one written 275 years after he supposedly lived by a Bishop, Eusebius, not a professional historian.

More Problematic is the lack of visual evidence within two hundred years of the alleged time of Jesus

Earliest Catacombs Drawing of Jesus as the Good Shepherd, circa 250 CE

Images -0, Figurines – 0, Mosaics – 0, Funereal images – 0, House-church art – 1 (Dura-Europos-Yale, circa 235 C.E.)
Catacomb drawings – (earliest 250 C.E.)

The singular reference to Jesus by a single first Century historian, Josephus, is widely seen as a later Christian interpolation by the same man who wrote the first history of the Church that he claims Jesus founded, the Fourth century Bishop Eusebius.

The first writers who are aware of the four gospels are Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and Irenaeus, all of whom are probably correctly placed around the beginning of the Third century. The single original gospel seems to have been lost, but it probably came from the mid-second century, having something to do with a man named Marcion or Mark. While many difficult to date precisely epistles refer to an earlier God or an angel named Jesus/Joshua, this gospel was probably the first text to postulate a separate man living in the First century in the time of Pontius Pilate. Paul, for example, in his epistles, seems unaware that the lord Jesus/Joshua that he worships existed as a man from Nazareth who lived in the time of Pontius Pilate.

Returning to the more historically probable Nessie, unfortunately, with the use of submarines, better sonar and hundreds of underwater cameras the belief in Nessie has pretty well evaporated over the last decade. At least it has among serious scientists and observers. There are still tens of thousands of Pilgrims who travel to Loch Ness everyyear with the hope of seeing the creature. (information from Legend of Nessie, http://www.nessie.co.uk/htm/the_evidence/drawings.html, and wikipedia et al.) Apparently all the evidence that convinced millions of people that Nessie was alive came from from people’s imagination and some clever and not so clever hoaxers.

At least two scientists even wrote articles on the population density of monsters in Loch Ness www.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_17/issue_5/0796.pdf and www.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_18/issue_2/0343a.pdf. both published in the respectable biological journal Limnology and oceanography in the early ’70s.

The evidence for the historical existence of Jesus is so meager that it really can’t undergo any similar experiments. Although, theologians are constantly taking studies of what First century Jews did and then by logical deduction declaring that Jesus must have done that too.

On April 21, 1934 the London Daily Mail published a photograph supposedly taken by Dr. Robert Kenneth Wilson, a London gynecologist, of what appeared to be the Loch’s most famous inhabitant coming up for a quick look around. For over 60 years, most people pointed to this as definitive proof that such a creature in fact did exist. However in 1992 a man named Christian Spurling made a startling confession. According to Spurling, the photo was a hoax concocted by his step-father, Marmaduke Wetherell, who was a big-game hunter contracted by the Daily Mail to find evidence of the monster. When he failed to do so, the paper fired him. He extracted his revenge by creating a “serpent” out of a toy submarine, placing a model of a head over the conning tower.

 The model was then launched in the loch and the photo was snapped. By Spurling’s account, Wetherell persuaded Dr. Wilson to take credit for the shot. Perhaps fearing ridicule, Wilson never admitted to his part in the hoax. Despite this revelation, there are many Nessie believers, many of them respected scientists and journalists, who argue the admission is sour grapes and that it is no reason to discount other reports of the existence of the creature. ( from Lake Monsters Myths and Legends)

The sightings of Nessie may be due to a number of causes: sea otters, sturgeons, logs, boats, too much whiskey, overactive imagination, and deliberate hoaxers. This still makes Nessie herself a myth. The writings on Jesus may be due to a number of causes as well – interpretation of Hebrew Scriptures, mystery cult practices, reports on Judas the Galilean and other Jewish zealot revolutionaries, prophets, cynical philosophers, magical healing, zombies and maybe even a crucifixion or two. Add all the pieces together and we still get only a mythological Jesus.

Understanding the Loch Ness Monster Myth can help us understand how the Jesus Myth got started. There are some seemingly close parallels.

According toTony Harmsworth in “Loch Ness, Nessie, and Me”:

(from Harmsworth, Tony (2011-06-24). Loch Ness Monster, Nessie And Me (Kindle Locations 1374-1378). Harmsworth.net. Kindle Edition.)

It was only in 1933 with this single sighting that the legend of the Monster really started. From wikipedi, Loch Ness Monster:

This and the consequent faked “Surgeon’s Photo” in 1934 really created and spread the fame of the monster story.

Thus we have reports of Big Fish, then a report of a reptile-like monster. This shifted the debate in people’s mind to whether it was a fish or reptile-like creature. The duped photo resolved the issue by suggesting it was a plesiosaur, an aquatic reptile form the Pleistocene era (2,588,000 to 11,700 years BP). This was a satisfying, if completely false, solution to the previous problem.

The Loch Ness Question gets transformed this way:

1. Is there a Big Fish in the Lake? 2. Is there a monster in the lake? 3. Spicer sighting answers: No, there is a reptile-like monster.  3 Is there a big fish or a reptile-like monster? 4. Surgeon’s photo answers: No, there is a plesiosaur, which is both a big fish and reptile-like monster. 5. Is there a plesiosaur in the lake?

In the same way the Jews of the Second century sought to understand why their God had not sent a savior such as Joshua/Jesus of Nun to save them from the Romans in their two massive wars in 67-73 and 132-135 against the Romans. Was it because they had done something wrong and introduced new ways of interpreting the Mosaic laws as Josephus insisted? Or perhaps, the God of the Jews were less powerful than the gods of the Greco-Romans.

At the same time there seems to have been two different Joshua/Jesus cults reflected in the pre-gospel literature. One cult regarded Joshua as the name of God, while another regarded him as an angel, possibly the man Joshua lifted up to heaven after his death.

The original gospel, probably patched together in the middle of the Second century, suggested that God had indeed sent a Joshua/Holy Spirit savior, but the Jews rejected his new ways and killed the messenger and this led to God’s rejection of them. This was a total revision of history. The Christian-Jewish zealots, as reported by Josephus, had gotten control of the Jerusalem Temple and had murdered the chief Jewish officials and had led the people of Jerusalem in a disastrous war that led to the burning of the temple. The gospel was certainly revisionist history, but more importantly it answered the question about why God didn’t save the Jews and send a savior. The answer was, “Yes, he did send a savior, but the Jewish leaders mistook him for a zealot and murdered him.” In this way the Christian-Jewish Zealots shifted the blame for the defeat onto the traditional Jewish leadership. At the same time the gospel also answered the question about Joshua.

Thus was can see the transformation of the questions that the gospel were intended to solve:

1. Why did their God not send a savior to help the Jews during the wars? 2. Did the new zealots offend the God with their arrogance? 3. The gospel answered: No, the God did send a savior, it was not the new zealots that offended God, but the old Jewish establishment who took the Mosaic Law too literally and did not recognize him.

At the same time the gospel sought to answer the questions about Joshua/Jesus.

1. Is Joshua the name of God? 2. Is Joshua an angel who was the man Joshua of Nun, Moses’ Christ (anointed follower)? 3. The gospels answer: No, the lead angel is not Joshua of Nun, but the new Joshua sent by God and killed by the Jews. It is this Joshua that now sits at the right hand of God. No, Joshua is not the name of God, but the name of the son of God.

In modern times, starting in the 18th century, the myth was challenged over the return from the dead of Jesus, the ascension to heaven and the idea of God having a son. All of these things would have been accepted by the ancients without question. They are part of many ancient mythologies.  The questions that the original gospel sought to answer had to do with the reason for the Jewish defeat in the Jewish-Roman wars and the reference of the name Joshua (man, angel or God).

What is important to think about is how myths are believed because they resolve perplexing questions in a simple fashion.

This article is more or less a summary of some ideas I explored with a few others on the FDRB (Freethought and Rationalism Discussion Board. Special thanks to johno, jakesjoneiv and Mountainman Pete among others for sharing their ideas.

At the top of this image of restaurant management software is the option to "Bill Delete." Does the name of Cain's Mysterious Protector "Bill DeLeat" derive from "Bill Delete?"

Rachel Maddow recently pointed out that Herman Cain at a Republican Debate had quoted some lines from a Pokemon movie song and identified the writer as a great poet. This suggests to me that Cain is truly detached from reality and social norms. Did he really imagine that nobody would find out that he was quoting a children’s movie and not a great poet? Does he really think that people are that gullible that they don’t know the difference between great poetry and children’s platitudes? Probably it is because he himself and the people he hangs around with don’t know the difference.

I think I found another instance of Cain trying to be cleverly deceptive. In three of his books, Cain mentions a supervisor named Bill DeLeat who saved his job. He says that when he had his first management job at Pillsbury, running the Philadelphia Region Burger Kings, Mr. DeLeat helped him fight a conspiracy by Burger King executives in its Miami home office.  Apparently the executive back in the home office started hating him because, according to Cain, he had a different background. Suddenly and miraculously, he starts reporting to a new CEO named Bill DeLeat who helps him out of the jam. The problem is that I have been unable to find any information about any vice-president named William or Bill DeLeat at Burger King around 1984-1985.

I wonder if Cain made up this Character. Could this be some kind of alias that Cain was assuming, perhaps writing letters in his name to save himself from being fired?  He refers to Mr. DeLeat as a “CEO of Self,” I find it terribly suggestive that he is an imaginary CEO made up by Mr. Cain’s own self.

Why did Cain get into such trouble that he was in danger of losing his career? Did he perhaps delete bills that would have made his region results look bad? Was “Bill Deleat”/”Bill Delete” the way he saved himself when he presented poor results to the managers at Burger King? Is Cain making a little inside (his head) joke that he reported to a new manager named “Bill Deleat” who fixed things for him?

I know that this sounds paranoid on my part and I certainly do not want to falsely accuse Mr. Cain of such incredible deception.  My Google and dozens of other searches have failed to turn up anything on Mr. DeLeat. Therefore, if anybody has any information about William or Bill DeLeat, an executive vice president at Burger King around 1984-1985, according to Cain, I would deeply appreciate hearing from you. It would put my mind at rest to know that Mr. DeLeat was in fact an executive at Burger King during this period and not an imaginary character made up by Mr. Cain.

Here are the references to Bill DeLeat in Cain’s books

After my reassignment to Philadelphia, my new boss, Bill DeLeat, a true CEO of Self, paid my region a visit and spent three days intensively examining its operations. He then told me it was one of the best, if not the best-performing region in the country. (from “This is Herman Cain,” pg. 58)

The plot to get me fired played out during my tenure as vice president of the Philadelphia region. It involved my Pillsbury background, a direct report, a franchisee, and a higher-level officer of Burger King who felt threatened by my performance. Following a reassignment of region reporting relationships, my new boss, Bill DeLeat, then an executive vice president of Burger King Corporate, came to visit my region to determine firsthand how things were going. The financials were all exceeding our annual targets, but as Bill put it, “There are a lot of people in Miami [corporate headquearters] who do not like you and want you fired.”

     I felt crushed since after only a year and a half as regional vice president, my region was exceeding its performance goals. After spending about three intensive days in my region, Bill also told me that it was unquestionably one of the best regions, if not the best region, in the company.

     Bill started a campaign in corporate to correct the unfair and inaccurate perception of my performance. Bill DeLeat was one of those angels for whom you can only be thankful, especially when things are so unfair. Since the corporate attitudes toward me were personal and not performance based, they did not change much, but Bill provided strong support and watched my back while I kept doing my job. If handled differently, the entire episode could have ended my corporate career. Period. ( from “They Think You’re Stupid,” pp. 193-194)

That there was a realignment of the regions which report to the divisional executive vice presidents. My new boss would be Bill DeLeat, who I knew but with whom I had not worked directly. He spent three days in Philly with me evaluating my operations from top to bottom. Each department director presented an update on their respective… (from “Leadership is Common Sense,” pg. 58)

It is sad that the corporate media has not investigated this episode in Cain’s life. What was the nature of this “direct report?” What were the charges against Cain that were so serious that if they had “been handled differently,” it would have led to the end of his corporate career. “Period?” How did the mysterious angel, that CEO of Self, “Bill DeLeat” save him?

Again, if anybody knows anything about Bill DeLeat or can find any research material on him, please let me know.